Why is a complete DataItem needed? about ta-rs HOT 3 CLOSED

Created a PR for your consideration.

from ta-rs.

@virtualritz Hi!
Thanks for your comment, the suggestion you propose sounds reasonable, enforcing validation without giving any other options, indeed not the best idea. On other hand.. I did not expect people to use DataItem extensively, they should rather come up with own implementations of "DateItem"s depending on their source of data (.e.g it's often that Volume is missing).

Thanks for the PR. I will take a close look at it next week, when I'll have time.
It may be, that I'd go for multiple variations of data items, depending on data that are supplied.

from ta-rs.

Yet I need to build a complete DataItem using the builder() method.

You don't have to. DataItem here is mostly for illustrative purpose and a little bit of convenience.

The indicators are designed not to rely on DataTime, but rather on the abstractions (Close, Low, High, etc traits).
I just added an example, please see: https://github.com/greyblake/ta-rs/blob/master/examples/custom_data_item.rs

It would be nice to be able to use the init struct pattern on DataItem

This pattern for this use case creates a lot of surfaces for potential errors. For example: you may initialize DataTime with only high, and use TrueRange indicator, which will pick 0 for low and close. This will of course will lead to incorrect output without any errors.

from ta-rs.