Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve code structure and metadata for providers #134

Open
3 tasks
samriddhi99 opened this issue Jul 3, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
3 tasks

Improve code structure and metadata for providers #134

samriddhi99 opened this issue Jul 3, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
need-discussion The requirements isn't clear yet, need more thorough discussion

Comments

@samriddhi99
Copy link
Collaborator

The current implementation of the providers has several areas that need improvement to enhance clarity, maintainability, and robustness.

  • There is no clear documentation or structure indicating which arguments are required for each operation type (input_type). This can lead to confusion and errors in usage.
  • There is no straightforward way to list all supported input_type values programmatically. This could be solved by defining a constant or enumeration for operation types.
  • Functions aren't modular/reusable.
@refeed
Copy link
Member

refeed commented Jul 10, 2024

TODO:

  • Add possible approaches and designs to introduce metadata to the Tirith providers and schema
    • Also consider that Tirith providers will not be in the Tirith core repository, it will be separated, and users can create their own custom providers, so that providers and core should be decoupled

@refeed refeed changed the title Imporve code structure for providers Improve code structure and metadata for providers Jul 10, 2024
@samriddhi99 samriddhi99 added the need-discussion The requirements isn't clear yet, need more thorough discussion label Jul 31, 2024
@refeed
Copy link
Member

refeed commented Aug 2, 2024

This is related a little bit to #154

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
need-discussion The requirements isn't clear yet, need more thorough discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants