Current State of Resolver Returns

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 129 views

Introduction

Resolvers are a crucial component of many software systems, particularly in the context of data processing and analysis. They play a vital role in extracting and transforming data from various sources, making them an essential part of data pipelines. However, the question of what resolvers return has been a subject of debate and inconsistency in the codebase. In this article, we will delve into the current state of resolver returns, the implications of this inconsistency, and propose a unified design decision to support the full range of abilities.

Current State of Resolver Returns

Resolvers, as mentioned earlier, do not consistently return a certain type of data. Various places in the codebase suggest that they return a FinalFeedback object. However, the stats resolver returns a dictionary, which includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback. This inconsistency has significant implications, particularly for CLI pipelines that rely on the expected return type of resolvers.

Implications of Inconsistency

The inconsistency in resolver returns has led to issues with CLI pipelines that anticipate the use of the stats pipeline return type instead of the FinalFeedback return type. This has resulted in pipeline breaks, which can be frustrating and time-consuming to resolve. To mitigate this issue, a temporary solution has been proposed, where the return value of resolvers can be inspected to choose an appropriate approach.

Temporary Solution

The temporary solution involves inspecting the return value of resolvers to determine the appropriate approach. This can be achieved by checking the type of the return value and handling it accordingly. For instance, the following code snippet demonstrates how to handle the return value of a resolver:

def to_json(self):
    resolution = ({'final': self.resolution.to_json()}
                  if isinstance(self.resolution, FinalFeedback)
                  self.resolution.copy() 
                  if self.resolution else {})
    #if 'considered' in resolution:
    #    for c in resolution['considered']:
    #        if 'fields' in c:
    #            del c['fields']
    return dict(
        output=self.output,
        error=self.error,
        **resolution
    )

Unified Design Decision

While the temporary solution can help mitigate the issues caused by the inconsistency in resolver returns, a unified design decision is necessary to support the full range of abilities. A unified design decision will ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data, making it easier to develop and maintain CLI pipelines.

Benefits of Unified Design Decision

A unified design decision will have several benefits, including:

Improved Consistency: A unified design decision will ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data, reducing the likelihood of pipeline breaks.
Simplified Development: With a unified design decision, developers can focus on developing CLI pipelines without worrying about the return type of resolvers.
Enhanced Maintainability: A unified design decision will make it easier to maintain and update CLI pipelines, reducing the risk of errors and inconsistencies.

Proposed Unified Design Decision

Based on the current state of resolver returns and the implications of inconsistency, a proposed unified design decision is to have resolvers return a dictionary that includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback. This will ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data, making it easier to develop and maintain CLI pipelines.

Implementation of Unified Design Decision

To implement the unified design decision, the following steps can be taken:

Update Resolver Code: Update the resolver code to return a dictionary that includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback.
Modify CLI Pipelines: Modify CLI pipelines to expect the new return type of resolvers.
Test and Validate: Test and validate the updated resolver code and CLI pipelines to ensure that they work as expected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the inconsistency in resolver returns has significant implications for CLI pipelines. A unified design decision is necessary to support the full range of abilities and ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data. By proposing a unified design decision and implementing it, we can improve consistency, simplify development, and enhance maintainability of CLI pipelines.

Future Work

Future work will focus on implementing the unified design decision and testing its effectiveness. Additionally, we will continue to monitor the codebase for any inconsistencies and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this article, the following recommendations are made:

Developers: Developers should be aware of the inconsistency in resolver returns and take steps to mitigate its effects.
Maintainers: Maintainers should update the resolver code to return a consistent type of data and modify CLI pipelines to expect the new return type.
Stakeholders: Stakeholders should be informed of the unified design decision and its benefits to ensure that they are aware of the changes and can plan accordingly.
Q&A: What do Resolvers Return? =====================================

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed the inconsistency in resolver returns and proposed a unified design decision to support the full range of abilities. In this article, we will answer some frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to resolvers and their returns.

Q: What is a resolver?

A resolver is a component that extracts and transforms data from various sources, making it an essential part of data pipelines.

Q: Why is there inconsistency in resolver returns?

The inconsistency in resolver returns is due to the fact that various places in the codebase suggest that resolvers return a FinalFeedback object, while the stats resolver returns a dictionary that includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback.

Q: What are the implications of inconsistency in resolver returns?

The inconsistency in resolver returns has significant implications, particularly for CLI pipelines that rely on the expected return type of resolvers. This has resulted in pipeline breaks, which can be frustrating and time-consuming to resolve.

Q: What is the temporary solution to mitigate the effects of inconsistency?

Q: What is the proposed unified design decision for resolver returns?

The proposed unified design decision is to have resolvers return a dictionary that includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback. This will ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data, making it easier to develop and maintain CLI pipelines.

Q: How will the unified design decision be implemented?

To implement the unified design decision, the following steps can be taken:

Update Resolver Code: Update the resolver code to return a dictionary that includes the final feedback object and a list of considered feedback.
Modify CLI Pipelines: Modify CLI pipelines to expect the new return type of resolvers.
Test and Validate: Test and validate the updated resolver code and CLI pipelines to ensure that they work as expected.

Q: What are the benefits of the unified design decision?

The unified design decision will have several benefits, including:

Improved Consistency: A unified design decision will ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data, reducing the likelihood of pipeline breaks.
Simplified Development: With a unified design decision, developers can focus on developing CLI pipelines without worrying about the return type of resolvers.
Enhanced Maintainability: A unified design decision will make it easier to maintain and update CLI pipelines, reducing the risk of errors and inconsistencies.

Q: Who should be aware of the unified design decision?

Developers, maintainers, and stakeholders should be informed of the unified design decision and its benefits to ensure that they are aware of the changes and can plan accordingly.

Q: What is the next step after implementing the unified design decision?

After implementing the unified design decision, the next step will be to monitor the codebase for any inconsistencies and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the inconsistency in resolver returns has significant implications for CLI pipelines. A unified design decision is necessary to support the full range of abilities and ensure that resolvers return a consistent type of data. By answering these FAQs, we hope to provide clarity and guidance on the unified design decision and its implementation.

Future Work

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this article, the following recommendations are made:

Developers: Developers should be aware of the inconsistency in resolver returns and take steps to mitigate its effects.
Maintainers: Maintainers should update the resolver code to return a consistent type of data and modify CLI pipelines to expect the new return type.
Stakeholders: Stakeholders should be informed of the unified design decision and its benefits to ensure that they are aware of the changes and can plan accordingly.