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

Schema mixes snake and camel case? #150

Closed
derenrich opened this issue Jan 10, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #166
Closed

Schema mixes snake and camel case? #150

derenrich opened this issue Jan 10, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #166

Comments

@derenrich
Copy link

Why does the API mix camel and snake case? The service manifest has keys named

  • identifierSpace, schemaSpace, defaultTypes
  • feature_view

Presumably you would want to use one or the other? Is it that you are using snake for objects and camel for values/arrays? But later in suggest metadata you use service_url to refer to a string? I'm confused.

@derenrich
Copy link
Author

Also, the manifest spec mentions a key called batchSize but this is not included in the json schema at the bottom of the spec

@wetneb
Copy link
Member

wetneb commented Jan 10, 2024

Thanks! I think it would be worth normalizing this in the current draft indeed.

fsteeg added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 11, 2024
While snake_case took over in the draft, camelCase is the common
convention in the manifest, so this seems to be the sensible choice
fsteeg added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 11, 2024
wetneb pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 13, 2024
* Unify naming to camelCase convention (#150)

While snake_case took over in the draft, camelCase is the common
convention in the manifest, so this seems to be the sensible choice

* Update draft examples and schemas for removed fields

Noticed while unifying naming for #150

* Update "This Draft" section for camelCase naming (#150, #162)
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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants