[ENHANCEMENT/REFACTOR] argilla: lazy resolution for dataset workspaces

[frascuchon]

This PR removes the workspace resolution on Dataset.__init__ and performs it lazily when creating datasets or accessing the dataset.workspace property

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Refactor (change restructuring the codebase without changing functionality)
• Improvement (change adding some improvement to an existing functionality)
• Documentation update

How Has This Been Tested

Checklist

• I added relevant documentation
• follows the style guidelines of this project
• I did a self-review of my code
• I made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I confirm My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added relevant notes to the CHANGELOG.md file (See https://keepachangelog.com/)

[burtenshaw]

Looks good. One question: how would Dataset.exist behave if there's no workspace in the dataset resource? This method confuses a lot of users.

[frascuchon]

The .exists method uses the resource ID internally, so a workspace is unnecessary for this query. Yes, I see the confusion of users setting datasets with a name and a workspace and checking the existence of the dataset.

maybe this existence method should be defined at the client level:

client.datasets.exists(dataset)
#or 
client.datasets.exists(name, workspace)

Just to force a direct client interaction to make more sense to the "exists" query.

[burtenshaw]

The .exists method uses the resource ID internally, so a workspace is unnecessary for this query. Yes, I see the confusion of users setting datasets with a name and a workspace and checking the existence of the dataset.

maybe this existence method should be defined at the client level:

client.datasets.exists(dataset)
#or 
client.datasets.exists(name, workspace)

Just to force a direct client interaction to make more sense to the "exists" query.

Yeah. I think this would solve it because in most cases the user just wants to know 'can I use this name?'

This could be implemented in a subsequent PR though.