Open philip-davis opened 2 months ago
Honestly, I’m not sure what the purpose of this argument is. I know it's something Andreu code needs. I could remove it from the API validation, but first, I need to confirm whether this would impact Andreu. I’m assigning this issue to Andreu for further clarification.
This problem has been solved in the branch I am currently working on. I need to finsih some more functionalitites and test them before asking for a merge but I will try to make it soon.
We have changed the
processing
argument to optional in the python bindings, but it is needed in the validator forURLRequest
:https://github.com/sci-ndp/scidx-api/blob/5d48fac1fa144a55b181007d55613198782c5f10/api/models/urlrequest_model.py#L159
even though
processing
is optional in the model itself.I'm trying to register a netcdf url, and it's not clear to me what the correct value for
group
should be, and what are the implications of any particular choice for that value:I guess the ways forward I can imagine are:
file_type
that maps to an empty processingdict
. I personally thinkfile_type
is an intuitive and important attribute of a url registration, so I don't prefer that option.processing
dict for some or all values offile_type
. I don't know howprocessing
is used, so I don't know what would be lost by doing that.file_type
in the client bindings or API.processing
in the client bindings, and sufficiently document the correct values to use. Ifprocessing
is only narrowly useful, I'm not sure that's worthwhile.My intuition is towards either 2 or 3 (with the logic in the API). But I really don't know what
processing
is used for, so I could easily be missing the right option.