Map value when single value provided for multivalued slot.

[martinwellman]

In ObjectTransformer's map_object function, if a single-valued value is provided but the source slot is multi-valued, then previously the value was converted to a list without mapping the value:

v = [v]

The desired behaviour is to both convert the single value to a list and also map that single value:

v = [self.map_object(v, source_class_slot_range, target_range)]

Closes #59

[nlharris]

I'm not the right person to review this, and Chris is a PI and shouldn't be asked to review PRs (though of course he may volunteer himself!). I suggest @kevinschaper as a reviewer.

[kevinschaper]

@martinwellman Would you be willing to add a unit test that captures the failure here?

I'm a little hesitant to ask, because this code is deeply nested enough that it really can't be "unit" tested, and solving that is obviously way out of scope for this PR, but this seems like the sort of miss that it would be nice to ensure we don't repeat.

[kevinschaper]

Approving because it's a good/important fix, but not merging yet just in case @martinwellman has time to add a test too

[martinwellman]

@martinwellman Would you be willing to add a unit test that captures the failure here?

I'm a little hesitant to ask, because this code is deeply nested enough that it really can't be "unit" tested, and solving that is obviously way out of scope for this PR, but this seems like the sort of miss that it would be nice to ensure we don't repeat.

@kevinschaper I'll try to add a unit test for this next week.

[cmungall]

Thanks, Martin! Much appreciated 🙏

…

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 3:03 PM Martin Wellman ***@***.***> wrote: *martinwellman* left a comment (linkml/linkml-map#78) <#78 (comment)> @martinwellman <https://github.com/martinwellman> Would you be willing to add a unit test that captures the failure here? I'm a little hesitant to ask, because this code is deeply nested enough that it really can't be "unit" tested, and solving that is obviously way out of scope for this PR, but this seems like the sort of miss that it would be nice to ensure we don't repeat. I'll try to add a unit test for this next week. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#78 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOLAGN2Q5LLEA4DV5T33DNDCJAVCNFSM6AAAAAB7I7AS2GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSNZRHAZDKMJZGM> . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>