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.

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

Temporarily restrict dandischema requirement to < 0.10.2 #1458

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 12, 2024

Conversation

jwodder
Copy link
Member

@jwodder jwodder commented Jul 12, 2024

Per @jjnesbitt's advice here

Note that I have added the "release" tag to this PR in order to get this restriction out to users soon.

@jwodder jwodder added release Create a release when this pr is merged dependencies Update one or more dependencies version labels Jul 12, 2024
@jwodder jwodder requested a review from yarikoptic July 12, 2024 12:27
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 12, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.58%. Comparing base (e2d963d) to head (ccf4329).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1458      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.45%   88.58%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          77       77              
  Lines       10535    10535              
==========================================
+ Hits         9319     9332      +13     
+ Misses       1216     1203      -13     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 88.58% <ø> (+0.12%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@yarikoptic yarikoptic merged commit b7e52e5 into master Jul 12, 2024
28 checks passed
@yarikoptic yarikoptic deleted the bound-schema branch July 12, 2024 19:35
Copy link

🚀 PR was released in 0.62.3 🚀

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

Thank you @jwodder !

We really should see if we could somehow reduce such close tie to metadata library in terms of versioning. Hopefully having model expressed as linkml would provide us a remedy so that we could just use corresponding version of the model (like now could be done with jsonschema serialization) supported/requested by the server. Right @candleindark ?

@candleindark
Copy link
Member

Thank you @jwodder !

We really should see if we could somehow reduce such close tie to metadata library in terms of versioning. Hopefully having model expressed as linkml would provide us a remedy so that we could just use corresponding version of the model (like now could be done with jsonschema serialization) supported/requested by the server. Right @candleindark ?

I am not sure LinkML can solve the particular problem we are facing. The current problem is that the GUI is not accepting the new generated JSON schema generated from Pydantic models. If we have the models expressed in LinkML, the JSON schema will be generated from these models expressed in LinkML instead. You will still have to test the JSON schema against the GUI.

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

I meant more of being able to test against specific version of schema. We already have jsonschema dumps in https://github.com/dandi/schema/tree/master/releases so in principle, anything which relies on jsonschema alone and is fully compatible with it -- should be able to validate even against versions it didn't see yet before. But with pydantic we cannot really load/use different versions of schema, only "current one", hence rely on "most recent one" and upgrades into it.

@candleindark
Copy link
Member

I meant more of being able to test against specific version of schema. We already have jsonschema dumps in https://github.com/dandi/schema/tree/master/releases so in principle, anything which relies on jsonschema alone and is fully compatible with it -- should be able to validate even against versions it didn't see yet before. But with pydantic we cannot really load/use different versions of schema, only "current one", hence rely on "most recent one" and upgrades into it.

Yes, in principle that should work. In the backend, assuming you are still using Pydantic models, generated from LinkML, you will need to load different versions of these models from different versions of LinkML schema.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies Update one or more dependencies version release Create a release when this pr is merged released
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants