-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
* docs: metadata spec * docs: remove refs to scrape --------- Co-authored-by: Gerald Rich <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
dc24b8e
commit f689f6b
Showing
3 changed files
with
69 additions
and
17 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ | ||
# Deprecate `scrape` method | ||
|
||
Removes `clean` modules `scrape` method with a PR in favor of `scrape_meta` to focus development and testing around a JSON spec source of truth for other scrapers and analysis to use further downstream. | ||
|
||
## Problems | ||
|
||
- How do we scrape/download assets related to law enforcement accountability in a consistent manner? | ||
- How do we associate multiple assets with with a single incident reference ID? | ||
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
This is a two-part proposal. By deprecating one method we can focus development cycles around a reliable schema for consumers. | ||
|
||
1. Delete the `scrape` method in individual scrapers with a single PR (GitHub will record the code) | ||
2. Add stricter tests/types for `scrape_meta` to ensure it produces consistent results | ||
|
||
## Implications | ||
|
||
Please refer back to this document in discussions, code reviews, or additional proposals if additional implications arise. | ||
|
||
### Pros | ||
|
||
- Consistent outputs | ||
- Test coverage strategy | ||
|
||
### Cons | ||
|
||
- Additional cognitive and testing overheads | ||
- Upfront costs for onboarding new contributors | ||
|
||
### Risks | ||
|
||
- More documentation and friction to development | ||
|
||
## Outcome | ||
|
||
Adopted |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters