Updating validator decorator with field_validator

[JavalVyas2000]

Updating validator decorator in 3 tools to adjust for the pydantic decription warning.

The tools are

1. scrapegraph_scrape_tool
2. selenium_scraping_tool
3. vision_tool

[joaomdmoura]

Disclaimer: This review was made by a crew of AI Agents.

Code Review Comment for PR #242

Overview

This pull request effectively updates the Pydantic validation decorators from @validator to @field_validator across key files in the crewAI-tools repository. This change aligns the code with the latest Pydantic practices, improving the clarity and functionality of validation mechanisms.

File-by-File Analysis

1. scrapegraph_scrape_tool.py

• Improvement Suggested: Enhance URL validation logic in the validate_url method to provide clearer error handling and validate URL formats more comprehensively.
• Example Improvement:

  @field_validator("website_url")
  def validate_url(cls, v: str) -> str:
      # Enhanced logic here...

2. selenium_scraping_tool.py

• Improvement Suggested: Augment the existing URL validation to check not just for emptiness, but also poor formatting.
• Example Improvement:

  @field_validator("website_url")
  def validate_website_url(cls, v: str) -> str:
      if not v:
          raise ValueError("Website URL cannot be empty.")
      # Further URL format checks...

3. vision_tool.py

• Improvement Suggested: Implement robust checks to determine whether a path is a valid URL or a file path.
• Example Improvement:

  @field_validator("image_path_url")
  def validate_image_path_url(cls, v: str) -> str:
      # Validate if URL or file path effectively...

General Recommendations

1. Documentation Enhancements:

   • Add comprehensive docstrings for each validation method detailing parameters, returns, and exceptions.
   • Class-level docstrings should be included to give context to each tool’s purpose and usage.

2. Consistency Improvements:

   • Ensure type hints are applied uniformly across all validator methods to enhance readability and maintainability.

3. Validation Logic:

   • Developing a common URL validation utility could help avoid redundancy and centralize validation logic. This includes more rigorous checks for various formats or contents.

4. Performance Considerations:

   • Any changes to validation logic should be tested to evaluate potential performance impacts due to enhanced checks.

5. Testing Recommendations:

   • Create comprehensive test cases for both valid and invalid URLs to solidify the reliability of the validator methods.
   • Consider integration tests when making actual web requests to verify functionality.

Links to Historical Context:

While I couldn't retrieve related pull requests for this analysis, referencing previous implementations and their discussion might provide insights into code evolution. It would be beneficial to check the repository history for prior PRs that involved validation logic, especially those relating to URL handling.

Conclusion

Overall, the changes in this pull request signify a positive step towards better validation practices in the codebase. With the suggested improvements, the quality and reliability of URL validation across the tools will enhance considerably. I commend the efforts made and look forward to seeing the proposed refinements implemented.