Fix todos

[Marenz]

• Update versions
• Fix cookiecutter TODOS

[llucax]

With this repo scheme, I would put the actor in frequenz/dispatch/actor instead, as the python package is using the frequenz.dispatch namespace.

[Marenz]

Updated

[llucax]

Maybe not? :P

[Marenz]

On second glance, this involved WAY more files than I anticipated.

[Marenz]

Hmm but the client has the structure/namespace frequenz.client.dispatch

[llucax]

On second glance, this involved WAY more files than I anticipated.

Why?

Hmm but the client has the structure/namespace frequenz.client.dispatch

Yes, and it is in a repo called frequenz-client-dispatch. I mean, we can just name this repo frequenz-actor-dispatch and have only the actor as we planned originally, I just thought it might have been a good opportunity to try this other scheme, by mixing the actor and high-level interface in one repo, and keeping the actor as an implementation detail, as we do in the SDK, where users never need to deal with the actual actors used behind the scenes, and just use higher-level functions and objects that interact with the actors for them.

[llucax]

Oh, I see the diff now, so you actually used the actor template to create this repo, not the lib template, right?

[Marenz]

Yes, I used actor

On second glance, this involved WAY more files than I anticipated.

Why?

Because the name/path frequenz-actor-dispatch was all over the code, dependencies, tests, etc

I just thought it might have been a good opportunity to try this other scheme

Ah, alright. Sure, we can try.

[llucax]

Side note: Oh, dammit, we need to depend on the SDK for the actor, but the SDK will depend on the actor too eventually, we need to address frequenz-floss/frequenz-sdk-python#851 sooner than I expected.

[llucax]

OK, it seems there has been quite some confusion about the repo/python package name and general structure. The idea of calling this repo frequenz-dispatch-python instead of frequenz-actor-dispatch-python was to provide both the high-level interface and the actor in one repo (and use the normal lib repo config template).

Sorry about the confusion and extra work, we can of course talk about it if you don't agree and go with a different approach, it's that because you specifically pointed out that having so many repos was confusing I saw this as one place where we might reduce the number of repos, and thought it could help make things more clear instead of more confusion :(

[llucax]

src/frequenz/dispatch/__init__.py should also exist, the end user should probably do something like:

from frequenz.dispatch import Dispatcher

async def run():
    dispatcher = Dispatcher(API_CONNECTION_INFO)
    dispatcher.start()  # this will fire the actor
    dispatch_arrived = dispatcher.new_dispatches().new_receiver()
    dispatch_ready = dispatcher.ready_dispatches().new_receiver()
    # ...

I mean, in this case maybe the actor could be the same as the Dispatcher object, but so far we never put any methods in actors to make it clear the communication to actors should be done via channels instead. Maybe we should think about this possibility instead of having this in 2 layers, but this is a broader question, affecting other APIs too I guess.

Then the SDK will take care of create a global Dispatcher, so users using the SDK should do something more along the lines:

from frequenz import sdk

sdk.initialize(CONFIG)

async def run():
    dispatch_arrived = sdk.dispatcher.new_dispatches().new_receiver()
    dispatch_ready = sdk.dispatcher.ready_dispatches().new_receiver()
    # ...

[llucax]

It would be good to fix at leas the version bump in the wrong commit, but even that is not that important, so I'll approve anyway.

[llucax]

The changes to this file are in the wrong commit.

[Marenz]

fixed. No re-approve required.

[llucax]

You could bump directly to v0.9.1 here, but dependabot will take care of it if you don't.