Python: Bottle Framework Support

[Kwstubbs]

Add basic Bottle support

[RasmusWL]

Thanks 🎉

Overall the code looks OK to me, but to accept this PR I need you to write some tests 😊 (good start by copying over the ConceptsTest, but we also need some code using bottle to show that the modeling works as intended) See flask tests as an inspiration.

[Kwstubbs]

@RasmusWL I've added more support for Bottle routes and I've added tests.

[yoff]

@RasmusWL is travelling at the moment, so I will take this over for now.
I am curious about the switch away from API nodes in 5d12f7b, was it necessary to get the tests pass?
It looks like you based this off of other models. This is absolutely fine, but let us double check that we are actually modelling the bottle framework.

[yoff]

The structure of both the code and the tests are good. I am a little worried that the modelling is not completely aligned with the framework; all these frameworks have subtle differences. A good way to align with the framework could be to write several examples, taken from tutorials and the like, in the test files and then align the modelling to those (padding out the set of function names and argument names by looking at the documentation).

[Kwstubbs]

@yoff Hi, please let me know what you think of the changes. I'm trying to model every possible usage of bottle, so even though the documentation might not mention something, if I find it is used a lot in Github I have included them. Obviously it must run on the latest, currently v12.25 as LTS. Also, I'm not sure where I moved away from API nodes in 5d12f7bd3. Everything I have modeled here I have created a codebase/codeql database to ensure validity.

[yoff]

Also, I'm not sure where I moved away from API nodes in 5d12f7bd3.

Sorry, that was a somewhat vague reference to a large diff. I meant the fields name and value inside the class HeaderWriteSubscript in the Headers module (see here).

[yoff]

I am requesting a small simplification, but I am feeling much better about this now; thanks for explaining your testing :-)

[Kwstubbs]

@yoff I was just copying from Werkzeug.qll as recommended by Rasmus on his first pass. The API nodes was working, as I was using these models in my research before PRing. ✅

[yoff]

LGTM

[yoff]

@yoff I was just copying from Werkzeug.qll as recommended by Rasmus on his first pass. The API nodes was working, as I was using these models in my research before PRing. ✅

In that case, it would be nicer to use the API nodes. They are cleaner and might match in a few more cases. I will not require it, though, it can be a clean-up of both situations later.

[Kwstubbs]

@yoff just curious about the status of this PR. Are we just waiting on approval from @RasmusWL?

[yoff]

@yoff just curious about the status of this PR. Are we just waiting on approval from @RasmusWL?

Sorry, this must have fallen through the cracks.

[yoff]

LGTM

Changes have been made satisfactorily