Closed dexter2206 closed 3 months ago
I'm also wondering whether it would make sense to rewrite all the examples we have to use this new format? Probably except one, just to show there are two ways to do this. But I don't see any reason for anyone to use the more verbose one if you have this.
I'm also wondering whether it would make sense to rewrite all the examples we have to use this new format? Probably except one, just to show there are two ways to do this. But I don't see any reason for anyone to use the more verbose one if you have this.
I'd actually say that the more verbose one should be the default. Given that QREF is mostly serialization format and is supposed to be machine-processed, it is easier to have objects instead of strings that have to be parsed to objects. It's nice we have simpler format, because one can quickly hand craft short examples, but I think machine-readability and ease of processing should be our default goal. WDYT?
I'd actually say that the more verbose one should be the default. Given that QREF is mostly serialization format and is supposed to be machine-processed, it is easier to have objects instead of strings that have to be parsed to objects. It's nice we have simpler format, because one can quickly hand craft short examples, but I think machine-readability and ease of processing should be our default goal. WDYT?
Sounds legit – we'll refactor it in bartiq examples though, as they're more "written by hand" case :) LGTM
Description
Closes #12
The concise format is "source -> target" (space-insensitive). It works both for schema validation and for pydantic model validation. However, for pydantic objects, the concise format always translates to original
ConnectionV1
object.Please verify that you have completed the following steps