Redefining controlled vocabularies

[JosePizarro3]

@carlosmada22

I had an idea to make it easier for users to define the controlled vocabularies in the Python schema.

Right now, when someone wants to define a new property which is a CONTROLLEDVOCABULARY, they need to define PropertyTypeAssignment and then define the vocabulary with its code in the vocabulary_types.py. My idea would be to substitute this two-step by a one-step looking like:

class MyObject(ObjectType):
    defs = ...

    prop_1 = PropertyTypeAssignment(
        data_type=VARCHAR,
        ...
    )

    prop_2 = PropertyTypeAssignment(
        data_type=CONTROLLEDVOCABULARY,
        vocabularies=Enum("option1", "option2", "option3", ...),
        ...
    )

I.e., we change the fact of defining the vocabularies separately and instead define them directly in the PropertyTypeAssignment as an attribute.

I think this will simplify a lot the fact of defining over and over things in separated parts. At the end of the day, controlled vocabularies are Enums. We also should add a vocabularies_type for when these are booleans instead of plain text.

[carlosmada22]

I really like the idea, since vocabularies are always a headache, but the only problem that I see here is regarding the vocabulary terms, that they have some fields on them:

term = VocabularyTerm(
        code="VOC_TERM",
        label="Vocabulary term",
        description="""This is a term""",
    )

I think we should automatize this in the case that we go for that solution, and maybe extract everything from the variable name(?) or using a dictionary.

If you have an idea for this, imo we can go for it, it will ease a lot the user experience.

[JosePizarro3]

Yeah, I think we can automatize a lot of these fields so users never have to actually define them, e.g., code. In the case of vocabularies, I think the only relevant thing is the actual term, as for code, label, description are kind of irrelevant.