Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

pokemon vs pokemon-form vs pokemon-variety

Chiusa
  • Qualcosa non va?
#1,678 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Refactoring
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Stato di attività
Attiva
Ambito
api

Direzione di ricerca

Inizia confrontando le risorse pokemon/10091, pokemon-form/10193, rattata-alola ed evolution-chain/7 descritte nell’issue. Traccia quali campi sono attualmente autorevoli per una varietà e una forma, quindi documenta le modifiche necessarie al modello per rimuovere i dati duplicati. Il lavoro è completato quando la relazione è inequivocabile e le risorse API interessate rimangono coerenti.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

Hi all, something has been on my mind a bit and now has drawn to a head with some updates to the evolution-requirements, where we now have required_pokemon_form pointing to a pokemon-form rather than a specific pokemon. I think there is now a bit of a disconnect between pokemon-varieties and pokemon-forms.

For example, take an evolution with a pokemon variety e.g., rattata-alola, evolution-chain/7. This used to point to the Pokémon at pokemon/10091, but now instead to pokemon-form/10193/. A Pokémon form "belongs" to at most 1 Pokémon (i.e., a 1-to-many relationship), and the only difference being that a form might have some minor field differences (just like a variety might).

I understand that maybe pokemon-form differs from pokemon-variety as it is purely cosmetic rather than a new Pokémon (moves, types etc), but I think it is creating unnecessary complexity when we could just add a new pokemon (which would still be different e.g., sprites).

We have a bunch of duplicated data, e.g., pokemon-form/10193/ copies most of the fields from pokemon/10091. This creates a multitude of problems e.g.,:

Let's assume we want to grab the types (normal/fire/water) of rattata-alola, where exactly should we look now?

It is pretty obfuscated as to which form/variety fields should be taken as ground truth.

I can't think of a case where a pokemon-form would not have any fields changed that could not be represented in a Pokémon. The monotonous part is then copying across these fields to pokemon (e.g., is_mega).

I really think that there is justification in merging pokemon-form with pokemon (just as varieties already does).

Please correct me if I'm overlooking something, but I really think each pokemon-form should be a pokemon, just as pokemon-variety already does (i.e., a pokemon-form/... just points to a new entry in pokemon/....). And, we dont need pokemon-form relation AT ALL.

Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
5.4k
Fork
1.2k
Merge medio
2g 7h
PR unite (30g)
17

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di PokeAPI/pokeapi

Tutte le issue di PokeAPI/pokeapi

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.