Improve API client UX

[thekaveman]

Right now the usage is a multi-step process including at least:

1. get the providers registry
2. filter registry for desired providers
3. configure resulting providers with auth_token etc., assuming you know how to generate all the different types of tokens
4. finally, use a ProviderClient to get_status_changes() or get_trips()

It is also somewhat confusing to have a ProviderClient that "manages" or queries multiple Providers at once. The code is probably over-complicated because of this as well...

This could all be simplified with some specific improvements to this class:

• [x] allow the providers keyword arg in both __init__ and the get_* methods to accept a string or array of string provider names. Internally handle filtering the registry (ProviderClient already can query and obtain the registry itself).

• [x] allow for a config parameter in __init__ and the get_* methods to pass in provider configuration, vs. having to configure them ahead of time.

• [x] consider removing support for "managing" multiple providers at once - one Provider, one ProviderClient.

[johnclary]

another use case: i would like to use the API client modules but am not interested in the db loading. from that perspective it may be logical to split the api/db purposes into separate packages.

i'll be spending more time with this project in the coming weeks. hope i can contribute.

[johnclary]

consider removing support for "managing" multiple providers at once - one Provider, one ProviderClient

+1

[thekaveman]

another use case: i would like to use the API client modules but am not interested in the db loading. from that perspective it may be logical to split the api/db purposes into separate packages

I'm not sure I see the benefit here. The only dependency related to mds.db that isn't also used elsewhere is sqlalchemy; there isn't much to be gained in that regard from separating api and db.

Of course you don't have to import mds.db! Is there another concern that I'm not thinking of?

[johnclary]

True. I'm mostly thinking of the pip install experience. My install happens to be choking on geopandas, but I haven't spent any time on it yet (and I'd be surprised if that's hard to resolve). Definitely less of a concern if the dependencies are shared.

[johnclary]

as an aside, looks like geopandas dependency can easily be dropped. will open new issue/pr.

[thekaveman]

as an aside, looks like geopandas dependency can easily be dropped. will open new issue/pr.

It's only used here: https://github.com/CityofSantaMonica/mds-provider/blob/dc5b7e0b2d74a89fbcbd2b923548f7378e567eb3/mds/json.py#L70

To convert a shapely.geometry.Shape into a GeoJSON object. Probably extreme overkill to use an entire library just for that 😆 Happy to accept a PR to remove that dependency.

[ezheidtmann]

The work I'm doing in #46 and #45 is moving towards "one provider -> one ProviderClient". This seems to be independent of the two other items listed in this issue (provider names & provider config).

[thekaveman]

Thanks to #40 and #71 the above changes will be made, including the move to a single provider per ProviderClient.

Initialize with a provider name or identifier directly:

client_A = ProviderClient("ProviderA")
client_B = ProviderClient("da80482e-1118-48e8-bccc-38492960bd17")

# optionally pass in configuration data
client_C = ProviderClient("ProviderC", config={ "token": "private" })

Use a provider name or identifier at request time:

client = ProviderClient()

trips_A = client.get_trips("ProviderA")
trips_B = client.get_trips("da80482e-1118-48e8-bccc-38492960bd17")

# optionally pass in configuration data
trips_C = client.get_trips("ProviderC", config={ "token": "private" })