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

Datatype argument for Doc writer. #92

Open
1 of 2 tasks
chrizandr opened this issue Jul 6, 2021 · 3 comments
Open
1 of 2 tasks

Datatype argument for Doc writer. #92

chrizandr opened this issue Jul 6, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@chrizandr
Copy link
Member

I'm submitting a

  • bug report.
  • feature request.

Current Behaviour:

We are using the keyword arguments to add range to supported property, which is fine. But users may not always use xsd:float/integer, while defiining properties.

Expected Behaviour:

It might be useful to have a separate datatype argument in docwriter while creating a new supportedProperty, which we map directly to xsd:float/integere instead of using the keyword arguments to specify the datatype.
We should give them an option define the datatype using python datatypes which we add to range as xsd:float/integer and let that behaviour be overridden with kwargs instead of relying on kwargs only.

I'd like to hear thoughts on this, it should be a small addition.

Steps to reproduce:

Do you want to work on this issue?

@farazkhanfk7
Copy link
Member

@Mec-iS @chrizandr I'm a little confused about this as I couldn't get a clear picture of what exactly we want here.

It might be useful to have a separate datatype argument in docwriter while creating a new supportedProperty

Do you mean that we can have another datatype argument in HydraClassProp ? like :

HydraClassProp(prop_uri, prop_title, required=True, read=True, write=True, datatype="float")

and then use it to set range to xsd:float ?

@Mec-iS
Copy link
Contributor

Mec-iS commented Jul 8, 2021

I didnt understand the issue completely but I think we can leave this for later and go on with the content of the proposal for now.

@chrizandr
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, that is what I meant @farazkhanfk7 .
Sorry if the wording has not made it clear.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants