schema for Enhancement

[ErnestaP]

No description provided.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #30 (fb74dd1) into main (8bcb144) will increase coverage by 0.33%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #30      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.67%   97.01%   +0.33%     
==========================================
  Files          48       54       +6     
  Lines        1414     1572     +158     
==========================================
+ Hits         1367     1525     +158     
  Misses         47       47              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
dags/schemas/enhancement_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
dags/schemas/generic_parser_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
dags/schemas/parser_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/units/schemas/test_enhancement_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/units/schemas/test_generic_parser_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/units/schemas/test_parser_schema.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8bcb144...fb74dd1. Read the comment docs.

[Neodia]

I think we should let this PR open until we add the validation. When colliding the schemas with the code we can check more easily if there are problems in the types. This PR should serve as documentation until then. WDYT @ErnestaP @drjova

[Neodia]

Same here

[Neodia]

Same here

[ErnestaP]

I think we can merge it since this code is not used at all. Later, we can have a painful time while solving merge conflicts.
Talking about checking is the problems with types- tests are written for that. For now, I'm testing with the input, and output we have from the parser (this data are saved in files). Afterward, we need to change these files, according to what we will get from the parser in QA. Finally, the code will be forced to change as well. We don't need to check it field by field, it is enough to run tests and sees what error it returns, and change code accordingly.

[drjova]

@ErnestaP thank you for the code, I believe we are in a stage of investigating if the current setup works well on QA hence I will suggest to keep it open.