#Python password creator code

Calling generate_gibberish's parameter security_level feels a bit strange - it sounds vague enough that I'd expect it to be able to affect all kinds of stuff like which characters can appear, whether characters can repeat, etc.

'week' should probably be 'weak' - the latter is the opposite of strong, the former is 7 days.

Union can be written as Optional instead, which I feel communicates the intent a bit clearer.

If someone hands you a thing that generates passwords and asks what it is, responding with 'It's a GeneratePassword' does sounds less natural than 'It's a PasswordGenerator' I'd say

A class name should generally be a type of thing.

What we're doing here is loading and parsing the file, right? So a name like load_config might be a better fit

check_config_file sounds like the name of a function that returns a Bool.

Someone might want to call it as part of a bigger program some day, and that'd be easier if this function would announce that it's failed and the caller should handle it (by letting the exception get raised) than if it demanded the entire program shuts down no matter what the caller wantsДЇinally, some minor nitpicks, mostly about names Oh, and check_config_file should probably not be responsible for forcibly shutting down the entire program when it doesn't find a file. That does sound kind of like a class to me - we could have each instance constructed based on a configuration file which it loads just once, and then keep using that configuration to generate as many passwords as we want.

So, we want to store state (maybe multiple different states even), and we want to have that state influence our behaviour.

It would be nice if we has a place to store the config so we didn't have to look it up each time Not a problem if we're generating ten passwords, might be a problem if we want to generate ten million - we probably won't, but still. Generate_password also has a minor annoyance - if we want to generate a lot of passwords, each call to generate_password will open the config file. It might be nice if that path could be passed as a parameter instead Am I saying we should delete the class, or is there something we can do to make the class more meaningful? Well, let's think about that while we look at the functionsД¬heck_config_file is well written, but does lose some flexibility by hardcoding the file path. I do think the structure can be improved, however - a class with only and usually doesn't want to be a class at all - if there is no situation where we'd want an instance of the class, or if there is no situation where two instances would be different, we don't really have a class, we just have a bag of functions. It's clean and readable, the logic is sensible and easy to follow, and I do like seeing type signatures Print(GeneratePassword.generate_password('week')) Sys.exit('Config file not generate_gibberish(security_level: int) -> str:Д¬hoices = string.punctuation + string.ascii_letters + string.digits With open('./config/security_level_conf.yml') as pass_conf: New_password = cls.generate_gibberish(security_level)

Security_level = conf.get(password_level) String argument to cls.generate_password generate_password(cls, password_level: str): Password size is taken from yaml config file, So does this consider 'good practice'? And what can I do better? import sys Since I do not have any environment that can give me constructive criticism, I would like to hear your opinions, so, here it is a python password generator, I know that something like that can be made with single function, but this is just 'project as a placeholder' if that make sense.

#Python password creator code

I am a self taught python developer and I trying to write clean code as mush as possible.