[ENH]: clarify non-included fields in .get() and .query() responses

[codetheweb]

Description of changes

Closes #300.

print(collection.get(...)) now looks like this:

Could use some opinions on this--is it too verbose? I figured it would be better to be consistent across all fields affected by include, but we could scope this to just embeddings for now as well.

This can probably be rolled into 0.5 as a potentially breaking change (embeddings is None will no longer work).

Test plan

• Tests pass locally with pytest for python, yarn test for js, cargo test for rust

Documentation Changes

Existing docs don't really give much details on how the response shape changes depending on include, so not necessary to update but might be nice to give additional details.

[github-actions]

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

• Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
• Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
• If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
• If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
• Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
• Are error messages user-friendly?
• Have all documentation changes needed been made?
• Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

• Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
• Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

• Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

[github-actions]

Please tag your PR title with one of: [ENH | BUG | DOC | TST | BLD | PERF | TYP | CLN | CHORE]. See https://docs.trychroma.com/contributing#contributing-code-and-ideas

[beggers]

This looks good to me. This is a change to our API and some of our users may be surprised -- could you put a note in https://docs.trychroma.com/migration about it? I don't think we need to do email comms but we should definitely do discord comms.

[codetheweb]

could you put a note in docs.trychroma.com/migration about it

#2028

[jeffchuber]

w00t!

[jeffchuber]

@codetheweb should we standardize this and add it to JS as well? (separate PR works for me)

[codetheweb]

should we standardize this and add it to JS as well? (separate PR works for me)

to be honest, I'm not sure, I feel like (good) Python SDKs tend to use helper classes whereas JS SDKs tend to use plain objects without magic behavior; but maybe it makes sense for consistency

we could also improve the typings of the JS SDK so the return type is dependent upon the include parameter

[codetheweb]

Closing in favor of #2044.