Accounts (and others) not iterable

[newoldtrader]

I'm new to python, so there may be a simple solution to this.

After installing and trying out the example code, I attempted to sort the returned accounts_page.accounts using
accounts_page.accounts.sort(key=lambda x: x['name'])
I kept getting:
TypeError: 'Account' object is not subscriptable

I found that by adding
def __getitem__(self, item): return getattr(self, item)
in the Account class allows the sort to work.

[KmiQ]

Thanks for reporting this @newoldtrader. I agree we can improve the containers like AccountsPage to make it organically iterable. I'm going to create an issue for this to see if I can give a shot shortly and include it in the next release. That said, for your specific example, I think you can make that code work if you eliminate the [] indexing. The below code should work for you:

page.accounts.sort(key=lambda x: x.name) (Note we are doing x.name instead of x[name]).

[KmiQ]

on how to make the containers iterable.

Coincidentally, I just merged #27, which makes Page objects iterable.

[KmiQ]

with both dot notation as well as indexing

I'm not sure about the need to have both notations, BUT if you want to access the object fields using indexing, you can always use __dict__ field. For example: page.accounts.sort(key=lambda x: x.__dict__['name']) The way the object are created allow the use of the internal dict.

[KmiQ]

Most of this already merged PR should be part of next week's 0.2.0 release.

[KmiQ]

So, at this point, I'm not totally sure if all your needs are covered in these latest PRs merged, I'd love to learn more about your use cases to justify using DotWiz. I wonder if that's a direction we want to go. We probably need to clarify what extra benefit will add and whether this benefit outweighs the cost (time invested + making the codebase potentially more complex). As an opportunity cost, wondering if we are going to benefit more from investing that time in other matters like Rate Limiting and Websocket support.

[newoldtrader]

No problem, I'm fine with your solution. Just throwing out ideas.