Docs: API reference documents unsupported read_csv mode="lax"

[im-anishraj]

Environment / Context

• Current website/API reference checked on https://arniolib.vercel.app/api.html
• Current source/docs checked locally at commit db905172
• Runtime behavior checked with arnio==1.19.0

Problem

The API reference describes read_csv(..., mode=...) as accepting "strict" or "lax", but Arnio's actual parser contract uses "strict" or "permissive".

Relevant current docs/source signals:

• README.md uses mode="permissive".
• docs/chunked_workflows.md documents mode as "strict" or "permissive".
• arnio/io.py validates mode in {"strict", "permissive"}.
• Runtime check: ar.read_csv(path, mode="lax") raises ValueError: mode must be either 'strict' or 'permissive'.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open https://arniolib.vercel.app/api.html.
2. Find the read_csv(...) API entry.
3. Read the mode description.
4. Try the documented mode="lax" value in Python.

Expected Result

The API page should document the accepted values as "strict" and "permissive".

Actual Result

The API page says mode controls parser strictness with "strict" or "lax", which is not accepted by the API.

Severity / Impact

Medium for documentation correctness. Users following the API reference will receive a validation error for the documented value.

Likely Affected Area

• website/api.html
• CSV ingestion docs

Suggested Next Action

Replace "lax" with "permissive" in the API reference and add/update a website docs test that asserts the documented mode values match the runtime contract.

[amna-sehgal]

Hello @im-anishraj

I will review the API documentation and align the read_csv mode parameter with the actual implementation. From what I understand, the API reference currently documents mode as accepting "strict" or "lax", but the actual parser contract and runtime behavior only support "strict" and "permissive".

I’ll update the API reference to replace "lax" with "permissive" and ensure consistency across the related documentation files. If needed, I’ll also cross-check other docs to make sure the terminology is consistent everywhere.

I’ll raise a PR once done.

[im-anishraj]

@amna-sehgal thanks for checking the implementation against the docs. This issue is still status:needs-triage, so I cannot assign it yet. Please wait until the scope is validated and the issue is moved to status:ready before starting a PR.

[Aashita101]

Hi! I'd love to work on this as a GSSoC'26 contributor. Could you please assign it to me? I'll have a PR ready soon!