[chore] Clean up the naming convention to make it simpler to use a retriever #4493
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Signed-off-by: Praful Khanduri <holiodin@gmail.com>
iblancasa
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
cc @jaronoff97 |
swiatekm
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2025
Contributor
swiatekm
left a comment
swiatekm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know whether this is more intuitive naming, but I don't really mind it either. Would like a few more reviews before we merge to ensure consensus.
jaronoff97
approved these changes
Nov 24, 2025
Contributor
jaronoff97
left a comment
jaronoff97
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah i dont mind the change, not a big deal IMO. the bigger problem is the repeated code in using these.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description:
All instances of functions like
ReceiverFor,ExporterFor,ProcessorFor, andParserForhave been following similar naming convention.Link to tracking Issue(s):
Testing:
ran unit and e2e tests locally
Documentation: