Boy this seems like a lot of change to add one variable.

And script.script["script"] rubs me the wrong way every time. Think we have enough script? We might need more script!

I think capturing the installer_file in get_installers and then using it afterwards was the cleanest way (the other ways I thought would have even more changes), but maybe there is is a better way I didn't see.

I agree script.script["script"] is really really repetitive ^^ I just pushed a rename to data for that element, so it becomes installer.data["script"] instead, a bit less vomit-inducing

I see what you are doing here: wrapping the dict we get from a YML or JSON file in a very basic data-class.

I'm not unsympathetic, and in Java I would absolutely do this. But this is Python where everything is very dynamic and rather casual compared to Java.

Passing around dicts for 'just data' is very conventional in dynamic languages like Python, and Lutris does it routinely.

Besides, your Installer class is rather a lot like the existing LutrisInstaller. I'm not comfortable having both.

I only merge bug-fixes, so this will have to wait for Maximum Leader. But I think this would be rejected in its current state.

I suggest what you could do instead is add a key-value pair to the installer dict yourself, with a distinguished name like "_lutris_installer_file" or something like that. It's not the kind of rigorous name-spacing you could have with separated classes, but it's good enough and should mean a lot less code churn.

You're right that a key-value pair for passing through that information is way easier on the code changes, I pushed that code up 👍