Updated evaluation function docs - #37
Conversation
peterbjohnson
left a comment
peterbjohnson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've made a couple of comments. The first one is just in one place - I avoided repeating it - but overall in some places I was a bit confused by what's generic and what's python-specific.
In many places you have made it clear enough, but in a few it's not clear to me. Could you do a sweep from that perspective and see if your can make any improvements?
Separate comment: the overview of the python function is useful. We need to ensure no duplication, so the READMEs in the functions should point to this page, or vice versa. Will you/have you check(ed) that everything is consistent and with no duplication?
Finally, should we introduce a convention for what to do with the main README when a new eval function is created? Currently they all look generic - they should be changed to point at their own docs. Can we systematise that somehow? At the very least say here in these docs that it should be done?
…fram and other languages, clarified base-layer behavior, and refined Python-centric instructions.
…ons on universal and Python specifications, and improved explanations for error handling and outputs.
|
Thanks for the comments, they should be addressed in the recent commit. |
…r local container testing, including HTTP API usage, health checks, and µEd/Legacy request examples.
|
Thanks all good. One typo I spotted: 'byt'. Otherwise, approved (can't see the button). |
2 participants
Addresses #36 and provides other needed updates to the evaluation function user docs, to align with Shimmy details.