add a root object to the output #1542
Open
Conversation
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
|
Looks like I tried this already ☝️. Will review the comments there and update this. |
gregsdennis
force-pushed
the
gregsdennis/output-root
branch
from
cf3af27 to
e1916d9
Compare
gregsdennis
force-pushed
the
gregsdennis/output-root
branch
from
80e5529 to
6a95310
Compare
|
Closing and reopening to rerun build |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
feature
Issue & Discussion References
Should probably merge #1457 first, but it's not a hard dependency. If anything, I can move the file in this PR and just close that one.
Summary
This PR addresses some conversations that @jdesrosiers and I have had intermittently over the past few years. His point was that the output needed a place to add more metadata about an evaluation. So this is a first go at that.
It adds a root object that is defined separately from the output unit. Previously, the root object was just another output unit, but having a distinct root object does make sense.
I've added dialect and schema identifiers to the root object and tweaked the wording throughout.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?