FIX: Avoid shadowing outer variable

[jhlegarreta]

Avoid shadowing outer variable. Fixes:

Shadows name 'data' from outer scope

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 63.57%. Comparing base (51efc18) to head (7e8ad8d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #130   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   63.57%   63.57%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines        2570     2570           
=======================================
  Hits         1634     1634           
  Misses        936      936           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	63.57% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[arokem]

Sorry, where is that being raised? Is that a warning? Should we put in a more rigorous check that it doesn't come back?

[jhlegarreta]

Sorry, where is that being raised?

IDE. Pycharm in this case.

Is that a warning?

Yes. Most of the times Python deals with these correctly, and does not result in bugs. But I guess depending on the circumstances, this could result in unexpected behavior.

Should we put in a more rigorous check that it doesn't come back?

I do not know how to add a check for this out of the top of my head. Whatever IDE you use, it will probably find a long list of warnings that linters are not finding.

[arokem]

I don't mind this change, but I think your IDE might be catching something that isn't in the outer scope for this variable, but simply in another function. Nevertheless, this is innocuous, so merging.

[jhlegarreta]

I don't mind this change, but I think your IDE might be catching something that isn't in the outer scope for this variable, but simply in another function. Nevertheless, this is innocuous, so merging.

The IDE complains because the function where the private function resides is already using a data variable. I think it is a legit complaint.

[arokem]

Ah yes, I see it now. Objection retracted.