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

Import of old scrapylib processor functions? #41

Open
nyov opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Import of old scrapylib processor functions? #41

nyov opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nyov
Copy link
Contributor

nyov commented Dec 14, 2020

Old scrapylib had a few ItemLoader processors that were dropped with the codebase.

I preserved them here when scrapylib repo disappeared.
Mostly date/time parser handling and some cleaners. I wonder if they'd be useful to add here - or not. (Are they duplicating features that are elsewhere and I may have overlooked?)

I could see them become a namespace such as itemloaders.processors.extra - which wouldn't be auto-imported with itemloaders.processors and could have external dependencies that don't automatically become required - such as the dateutil parser lib used here?
Or perhaps name it itemloaders.processorlib - as in stdlib - for a place to have a few generically useful processor functions?
But perhaps it's also okay if they just disappear. I'm not sure, really.

@Gallaecio Gallaecio added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 16, 2020
@Gallaecio
Copy link
Member

I would not mind having them as built-in processors.

And since we added jmespath as a dependency, I’m not sure if adding dateutil would be an issue. Maybe it could be added optionally.

Not a strong opinion either way, though.

@ejulio
Copy link
Collaborator

ejulio commented Dec 16, 2020

No strong opinion as well.
I think it wold be a nice addition, though we need to be careful on what will be our threshold of accepted utility dependencies.

Optional install are fine, but they must be clear in the docs, specially in the functions that rely on the optional install

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants