openvinotoolkit / openvino_xai

OpenVINO™ Explainable AI (XAI) Toolkit: Visual Explanation for OpenVINO Models
https://openvinotoolkit.github.io/openvino_xai/
Apache License 2.0
20 stars 9 forks source link

Refactor names/folders/objects for better verbosity #5

Closed GalyaZalesskaya closed 3 months ago

GalyaZalesskaya commented 3 months ago

Methods/Objects:

Files/Folders:

GalyaZalesskaya commented 3 months ago

To discuss @negvet @goodsong81

openvino_xai.insertion -> openvino_xai.xai_branch_inserter

Rename to be more concise? xai_branch_inserter | xai_inserter | inserter | xai_ir_inserter

GalyaZalesskaya commented 3 months ago

We need to have consistency between 3 options of calling Method, Task:

import openvino_xai as ovxai

ovxai.Task, ovxai.Method
from openvino_xai import Task, Method

Task, Method
from openvino_xai.common.parameters import Task, Method

Task, Method

I personally like both 2 and 3 option equally.

negvet commented 3 months ago

To discuss @negvet @goodsong81

openvino_xai.insertion -> openvino_xai.xai_branch_inserter

Rename to be more concise? xai_branch_inserter | xai_inserter | inserter | xai_ir_inserter

Assuming that one of this refactoring objective is to make code to be more concise, I would vote for the inserter.

negvet commented 3 months ago

We need to have consistency between 3 options of calling Method, Task:

import openvino_xai as ovxai

ovxai.Task, ovxai.Method
from openvino_xai import Task, Method

Task, Method
from openvino_xai.common.parameters import Task, Method

Task, Method

I personally like both 2 and 3 option equally.

I would propose for the code under openvino_xai to be follow option 3. But for the sample code under examples and docs, to follow option 1. So that the origin of the objects like Task and Method would be clear for the user and at the same time those object to be available at the top level (without going into the modules structure for import).