-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 659
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix Union type with dataclass ambiguous error and support superset comparison #5858
Open
mao3267
wants to merge
11
commits into
flyteorg:master
Choose a base branch
from
mao3267:fix/#5489-dataclass-mismatch
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+604
−19
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f06cdc6
feat: fix Union type with dataclass ambiguous error
mao3267 8660db5
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/mao3267/flyte into fix/#5…
mao3267 47ccbd1
fix: direct json comparison for superset
mao3267 85489dc
fix: go.mod missing entry for error
mao3267 cc685bb
fix: update go module and sum
mao3267 3a629e1
refactor: gci format
mao3267 aa4d98e
test: add dataset casting tests for same (one/two levels) and supers…
mao3267 b282e5f
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/mao3267/flyte into fix/#5…
mao3267 818afb7
fix: support Pydantic BaseModel comparison
mao3267 d6468b6
fix: handle nested pydantic basemodel
mao3267 ada05ed
Reviews from Eduardo
Future-Outlier File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an example comparing dataclass and Pydantic BaseModel. As shown, the schema for dataclass includes a title field that records the name of the class. Additionally, the
additionalProperties
field is absent from the Pydantic BaseModel schema because its value isfalse
. cc @eapolinarioThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To add the comment, writing the entire schema would make it too lengthy. Would it be acceptable to use something like this instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you proposing to preprocess the schemas so that one can mix and match dataclasses and base models given their schemas are aligned? I.e. task expects a dataclass with schema "A" and I pass a base model that has the same schema.
I personally feel this is not necessary and think it would be totally acceptable to consider a dataclass and a base model not a match by default. Especially if this makes things a lot more complicated in the backend otherwise because the schemas need to be aligned. What do you think about this?
If you are confident in the logic I'm of course not opposing the feature but if you feel this makes things complicated and brittle, I'd rather keep it simple and more robust.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it actually make things more complicated, will remove related logic.