Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Update v1.py #796

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update v1.py #796

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

valentina-faraco
Copy link

Multi-Slicer window

Description

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed or implemented. Please also include relevant motivation and context (e.g. links, docs, tickets etc.).

List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • This change requires a documentation update

How has this change been tested, please provide a testcase or example of how you tested the change?

YOUR_ANSWER

Any specific deployment considerations

For example, documentation changes, usability, usage/costs, secrets, etc.

Docs

  • Docs updated? What were the changes:

@valentina-faraco
Update v1.py
f169639 
Multi-Slicer window
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@PawelPeczek-Roboflow
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello there :)
Thanks for contribution - could you elaborate more on the type of change you want to introduce?

@valentina-faraco
Copy link
Author

valentina-faraco commented Nov 12, 2024 via email

@PawelPeczek-Roboflow
Copy link
Collaborator

ok, that's a valid idea but I cannot approve the change in a form as is - I believe it may not work (change of the run(...) method without altering manifest) and that's also a breaking change for the slicer block

@valentina-faraco
Copy link
Author

valentina-faraco commented Nov 12, 2024 via email

@PawelPeczek-Roboflow
Copy link
Collaborator

I believe the proper way is to create the block in version v2, yet I do not have an idea on how to easily pass the arguments such that it is clear for all users - including the one utilising Roboflow UI - especially that we would need to resign from simple params of meaningful names in favour of less verbose inputs - as lists of specs seems to be the only natural way of providing params in the scenario you outlined.

My hunch now is to have a mode parameter with the default being old behaviour and inputs should be interpreted w.r.t. the value of mode

@yeldarby
Copy link
Contributor

Another option is subclassing this block to get the behavior you want in a new block and using it as a custom block in your server.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@PawelPeczek-Roboflow PawelPeczek-Roboflow Awaiting requested review from PawelPeczek-Roboflow PawelPeczek-Roboflow is a code owner

@grzegorz-roboflow grzegorz-roboflow Awaiting requested review from grzegorz-roboflow grzegorz-roboflow is a code owner

@yeldarby yeldarby Awaiting requested review from yeldarby yeldarby is a code owner

@probicheaux probicheaux Awaiting requested review from probicheaux probicheaux is a code owner

@hansent hansent Awaiting requested review from hansent hansent is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@valentina-faraco @CLAassistant @PawelPeczek-Roboflow @yeldarby