feat: add RankingQuestion in the Python client

[alvarobartt]

Description

This PR includes the RankingQuestion, introduced in #3232, in the Python client, to allow users to create datasets with RankingQuestions and to submit responses for those too.

Usage

import argilla as rg

rg.init(
    api_url="<ARGILLA_API_URL>",
    api_key="<ARGILLA_API_KEY>,
)

ds = rg.FeedbackDataset(
    fields=[
        rg.TextField(name="prompt-1"),
        rg.TextField(name="prompt-2"),  
    ],
    questions=[
        rg.RankingQuestion(
            name="prompt-ranking",
            description="Rank the prompts from most to least natural.",
            required=True,
            values=["prompt-1", "prompt-2"],
        ),
    ],
)

ds.add_records(
    [
        rg.FeedbackRecord(
            fields={
                "prompt-1": "Explain to a broad audience why banana bread is so fluffy.",
                "prompt-2": "Explain banana banana banana.",
            },
            responses=[
                {
                    "values": {
                        "prompt-ranking": {"value": [{"value": "prompt-1", "rank": 1}, {"value": "prompt-2", "rank": 2}]},
                    },
                    "status": "submitted"
                },
            ],
        ), 
    ]
)

ds.push_to_argilla(name="new-dataset", workspace="new-workspace")
ds = rg.FeedbackDataset.from_argilla(name="new-dataset", workspace="new-workspace")

ds.push_to_huggingface(repo_id="<HUGGINGFACE_REPO_ID>", token="<HUGGINGFACE_TOKEN>")
ds = rg.FeedbackDataset.from_huggingface(repo_id="<HUGGINGFACE_REPO_ID>", token="<HUGGINGFACE_TOKEN>")

Type of change

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested

• Added unit tests to cover the new RankingQuestion

Checklist

• I added relevant documentation
• follows the style guidelines of this project
• I did a self-review of my code
• I made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I filled out the contributor form (see text above)
• I have added relevant notes to the CHANGELOG.md file (See https://keepachangelog.com/)

[gabrielmbmb]

LGTM! Just two minor comments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 84.03% and project coverage change: -0.86 ⚠️

Comparison is base (51751ac) 90.91% compared to head (32555c9) 90.05%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3275      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    90.91%   90.05%   -0.86%     
===========================================
  Files          215      233      +18     
  Lines        11304    12410    +1106     
===========================================
+ Hits         10277    11176     +899     
- Misses        1027     1234     +207     

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytest	90.05% <84.03%> (-0.86%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/argilla/__init__.py	86.66% <ø> (+3.33%)	⬆️
...illa/client/feedback/training/frameworks/openai.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rgilla/client/feedback/training/frameworks/peft.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...client/feedback/training/frameworks/span_marker.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/argilla/server/contexts/datasets.py	96.01% <ø> (ø)
src/argilla/server/seeds.py	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/argilla/tasks/users/create.py	91.11% <ø> (-4.45%)	⬇️
src/argilla/training/autotrain_advanced.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/argilla/training/peft.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/argilla/training/openai.py	42.66% <50.00%> (+0.20%)	⬆️
... and 60 more

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[alvarobartt]

Failing tests are unrelated (as most of the times), I guess we could try to work on a PR to add HTTP retries, or split the integration tests from the unit tests to avoid the CI/CD runs from failing so much, WDYT @frascuchon @gabrielmbmb?

[gabrielmbmb]

do we want to add here a rg.RankingQuestion? is the only one missing

[alvarobartt]

Indeed I think we should shorten the rest of them, as we have a lot of information that ends up being more than the actual code and it's hard to navigate through it, I think we can tackle the docstrings in the next release and use a clearer approach