Skip to content

.Net: Remove Record from abstraction type names #11832

Merged
roji merged 4 commits intomicrosoft:feature-vector-data-preb3from
roji:Naming
May 2, 2025
Merged

.Net: Remove Record from abstraction type names #11832
roji merged 4 commits intomicrosoft:feature-vector-data-preb3from
roji:Naming

Conversation

@roji
Copy link
Member

@roji roji commented May 1, 2025

Note: this PR is based on top of #11823, review last commit only

This applies naming changes discussed in API review (plus some other minor ones which align). To avoid huge PRs, this only touches the abstraction types, and not implementation types (I'll do this in a later PR).

  • IVectorStoreRecordCollection -> IVectorStoreCollection
  • [VectorStoreRecordData] -> [VectorStoreData], [VectorStoreRecordVector] -> [VectorStoreVector]
    • This aligns with the vector definition type name, and also with us generally removing Record from names (i.e. this represents a "data property in a vector store" just like IVectorStoreCollection represents a "collection in a vector store").
    • I added property though we don't necessarily have to... These attributes define what the .NET property "is" in a sense (a vector property, a key property), so it makes sense to have a Property suffix (the previous VectorStoreRecordData/VectorStoreRecordVector was also not ideal since these aren't vectors (or "datas").

Part of #11230

@markwallace-microsoft markwallace-microsoft added .NET Issue or Pull requests regarding .NET code kernel Issues or pull requests impacting the core kernel memory labels May 1, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Remove Record from abstraction type names .Net: Remove Record from abstraction type names May 1, 2025
@roji roji force-pushed the Naming branch 2 times, most recently from dbfcc44 to bf22ec7 Compare May 1, 2025 12:08
@roji roji temporarily deployed to integration May 1, 2025 12:08 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@roji roji marked this pull request as ready for review May 1, 2025 12:24
@roji roji requested a review from a team as a code owner May 1, 2025 12:24
@roji roji temporarily deployed to integration May 1, 2025 12:24 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@roji roji temporarily deployed to integration May 1, 2025 12:44 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@roji roji temporarily deployed to integration May 2, 2025 09:51 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@roji roji temporarily deployed to integration May 2, 2025 10:35 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@roji roji merged commit f61f16a into microsoft:feature-vector-data-preb3 May 2, 2025
11 checks passed
@roji roji deleted the Naming branch May 2, 2025 13:31
@roji roji linked an issue May 4, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
adamsitnik pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2025
Following #11832, this shortens the names of provider implementation
types as discussed in API review (e.g.
AzureCosmosDBMongoDBVectorStoreRecordCollection ->
CosmosMongoCollection)

* For Cosmos, I've left CosmosMongo vs. CosmosNoSql (note lower-case Sql
rather than the previous SQL) to disambiguate, as discussed in API
review.
* We could also shorten PostgresVectorStore to PostgresStore (similar to
how we have PostgresCollection now). For now I'm leaving
PostgresVectorStore - we can discuss.
* No namespaces/nuget package names are touched - I'll do this in a
later PR.

Closes #11230
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

kernel Issues or pull requests impacting the core kernel memory .NET Issue or Pull requests regarding .NET code

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

.Net: [MEVD] Shorten IVectorStoreRecordCollection (and related) names

3 participants