Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

sharing custom_checks #918

Closed
loco-philippe opened this issue Apr 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed

sharing custom_checks #918

loco-philippe opened this issue Apr 15, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@loco-philippe
Copy link
Contributor

@roll @peterdesmet

Two custom_checks were shared during discussions (issue #803 and PR #859):

Is there a structure for sharing custom_checks or is it better to use a third party (e.g. Validata)?

@roll
Copy link
Member

roll commented Apr 15, 2024

My opinion that custom_checks belongs more to the software level like frictionless-py or great-expectations. On the other hand after we clarified Extensions I think there might be a really good opportunity to create something like Tabular Quality extension

@frictionlessdata frictionlessdata locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 16, 2024
@roll roll converted this issue into discussion #919 Apr 16, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants