Docs: Create your own batch processor documentation inconsistency

[erikayao93]

What were you searching in the docs?

While investigating the capabilities of the batch processor in Python for a similar implementation in TypeScript, I found an inconsistency in the description compared to the code example.

The description states that developers should inherit the BasePartialProcessor class, which would require them to implement the abstract methods of prepare, clean, and process_record (or async_process_record).

However, the code example creates a class that inherits the BasePartialBatchProcessor class.

Is this related to an existing documentation section?

https://docs.powertools.aws.dev/lambda/python/2.19.0/utilities/batch/#create-your-own-partial-processor

How can we improve?

There should be clarity on which class developers are meant to inherit from.

If developers should inherit from BasePartialProcessor, the code example should be updated so that the code is usable. This may require other backend updates, as several pieces of functionality in the code example are reliant on capabilities of the BasePartialBatchProcessor class.

Got a suggestion in mind?

No response

Acknowledgment

• I understand the final update might be different from my proposed suggestion, or refused.

[heitorlessa]

great catch @erikayao93 - we had a major refactor recently and the old name wasn't updated in this section of the docs. I'll double check the correct one and update the docs today.

UPDATE: Correct one: BasePartialProcessor since it's the ABC. BasePartialBatchProcessor is the new one that has the base implementation for SQS/Kinesis/DynamoDB -- the former only has the contracts.

THANK YOU!

[erikayao93]

One more thing to note here -- the process_partial_response method that is used in the example expects a BasePartialBatchProcessor -- not a BasePartialProcessor, so I don't think the example would be functional in this case. The example could call directly as a context manager instead?

[github-actions]

This is now released under 2.20.0 version!

[leandrodamascena]

One more thing to note here -- the process_partial_response method that is used in the example expects a BasePartialBatchProcessor -- not a BasePartialProcessor, so I don't think the example would be functional in this case. The example could call directly as a context manager instead?

Hello @erikayao93! Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, the process_partial_response signature expects a BasePartialBatchProcessor, but we can use BasePartialProcessor and implement the process method in this processor. To avoid any problems if someone wants to create their own BatchProcessor and guide our customers in the right way, let me recreate this example with comments and a better example.

Reopening the issue.

[leandrodamascena]

I'm working on it and plan to create a PR tomorrow.

[github-actions]

⚠️COMMENT VISIBILITY WARNING⚠️

This issue is now closed. Please be mindful that future comments are hard for our team to see.

If you need more assistance, please either tag a team member or open a new issue that references this one.

If you wish to keep having a conversation with other community members under this issue feel free to do so.

[github-actions]

This is now released under 2.36.0 version!