-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Job posting spider. #82
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #82 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.98% 97.85% -0.14%
==========================================
Files 19 20 +1
Lines 1540 1630 +90
==========================================
+ Hits 1509 1595 +86
- Misses 31 35 +4
|
) -> Iterable[JobPosting]: | ||
probability = job_posting.get_probability() | ||
|
||
# TODO: convert to a configurable parameter later on after the launch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have a middleware in zyte-common-items to drop items below certain probability - what's the advantage of doing it in the spider?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This has been implemented this way probably mirroring the e-commerce counterpart code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, interesting - so, we're dropping custom attributes if the product probability is low; the middleware in zyte-common-items won't do it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I admit I just copied the e-commerce spider and trimmed it down.
We may want to do something differently but also we may want to extract common code, and I think we need to wait until this and articles exist in the same tree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, besides the room for code-sharing with the e-commerce spider, which I am not sure how to best address and I am not sure whether or not to consider it in scope here, i.e. maybe we should handle that after we have articles and this already merged.
I was asked to not merge this yet. |
No description provided.