Feature: exclude specific objects

[maxrothman]

Feature: exclude specific objects

[seperman]

I think we should start deprecating exclude_type and instead make it so it takes exclude.
Then it checks if the item in the exclude list is a class or not. If it is a class it should basically do exclude_type, otherwise it should use is as you mentioned to exclude exact objects that need to be excluded. Please make a PR if you have time. Also please make the appropriate changes to the contenthash.py so the exclude works there too since ignore_order uses the content hashes.

[maxrothman]

I'm not sure I agree with the approach of magically deciding whether to do isinstance vs == vs is comparison. Classes are also objects, what you want to exclude a class object from a diff? Or what about objects with well-defined == operations, like datetimes and uuids? It almost seems like we'd need a more complex API, something like this:

DD = DeepDiff()
DD.exclude(object=None, id_comparison=True)
DD.exclude(object=date(2017, 6, 13))
DD.exclude(type=UUID)
DD.diff(first, second)

I'm not terribly fond of this specific API, but my point is more that it seems like we need kwargs to pull it off.

[maxrothman]

Thinking about this a little more, being able to match based on ID or == would also be useful in DeepSearch for matching the thing you're searching for. Additionally, I can imagine users wanting to add more complex matching rules, so maybe this is a good opportunity for a hole-in-the-middle approach, something like this:

from deepdiff import DeepSearch, Match
from deepdiff.matchers import by_id

DeepSearch(thing1, thing2, matcher=by_id, exclude=[123, 'foo', (lambda x: return x%2 == 0)])

This way, users could specify their own matchers, and existing flags like case_sensitive could become matcher functions (though it might be good to leave in the kwarg as a shortcut).

[seperman]

Hi @maxrothman
Sorry for such a long delay in responding to you. I finally found some time to release the v4.0.0 and take a look at the tickets.
Are you still interested in making the PR? That would be great! I like your ideas. Based on what you came up with, the API that I'm imagining could be:

from deepdiff import exclude_condition  # for advanced exclusions

ex_cond1 = exclude_condition(type_=DateTime, condition=lambda x: x > 2018)

DeepDiff(t1, t2, exclude_objects=(123, "blah",...), exclude_conditions=[ex_cond1]

So the exclude_condition takes type_ and condition.
And then you can pass those conditions into the exclude_conditions parameter.

exclude_objects will be a list of objects that will be ignore based on ==. I think using is will be tricky. Where do you see is working better than == ?

[maxrothman]

Looking at this design, I think it could be simplified to the following:

DeepDiff(t1, t2, exclude: List[Callable[[itm], bool]])
# e.g.
DeepDiff(t1, t2, exclude=[lambda x: x==1, lambda x: isinstance(x, DateTime), lambda x: x is None])

This API supports the use cases of both exclude_objects and exclude_conditions, makes the ==/is choice a non-issue, and it supports any other use cases anyone could come up with.

Now that you're calling N functions for each object in the diff, performance could become a concern. In that case, you could build special-case optimizations for common patterns:

from deepdiff import exclude_equals, exclude_type
DeepDiff(t1, t2, exclude=[exclude_equals(123), exclude_type(DateTime)]

Unlike functions, the sentinel objects returned by these functions would only result in a single function call, and special logic could be added to the diffing algorithm that expects these sentinel objects and evaluates their conditions in fewer function calls.

I'm no longer actively using deepdiff, so it's unlikely I'll have the time to contribute this change. I'd be happy to continue helping with the design though.

[seperman]

I'm going to close this ticket since we have had the Exclude Obj Callback for a while.