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

pydantic>2 #83

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 27, 2024
Merged

pydantic>2 #83

merged 8 commits into from
May 27, 2024

Conversation

clausmichele
Copy link
Member

@clausmichele clausmichele commented Mar 5, 2024

Tests are passing, except one!

@clausmichele clausmichele marked this pull request as ready for review March 8, 2024 14:19
@clausmichele
Copy link
Member Author

@christophreimer @ValentinaHutter we are using this version for out InterTwin use case, since it is necessary to have Pydantic > 2 in combination with HydroMT.

What do you think it would be the best approach to move towards? I know you have many other components relying on Pydantic 1.x, but we would like to find a way to publish the version based on Pydantic 2 somehow.

@iacopoff @jzvolensky

@ValentinaHutter
Copy link
Collaborator

Please make sure all tests are running successfully, otherwise we cannot merge the PR. We will then review it and create a new release.

Then we can start updating our internal repositories to go from pydantic<2 to pydantic>2.

@clausmichele
Copy link
Member Author

@ValentinaHutter yes, there is one test failing, related to an old process graph from UC8 containing two experimental processes: fit_regr_random_forest and save_ml_model, That process graph is also not up to date, since the latest version (from UC8) is different and it's not using the process save_ml_model (which is the one creating issues with this test).

Here is the link to visualize the process graph used there:
https://editor.openeo.org/?server=https://openeo.eodc.eu/openeo/1.1.0&process=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Open-EO/openeo-pg-parser-networkx/main/tests/data/graphs/fit_rf_pg_0.json&discover=1

Question: should we remove that process graph and update it with the latest used in UC8? Using that one the tests are passing. Let me know if you are still using the save_ml_model somewhere, if not I will commit the fix.

@ValentinaHutter
Copy link
Collaborator

@ValentinaHutter yes, there is one test failing, related to an old process graph from UC8 containing two experimental processes: fit_regr_random_forest and save_ml_model, That process graph is also not up to date, since the latest version (from UC8) is different and it's not using the process save_ml_model (which is the one creating issues with this test).

Here is the link to visualize the process graph used there: https://editor.openeo.org/?server=https://openeo.eodc.eu/openeo/1.1.0&process=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Open-EO/openeo-pg-parser-networkx/main/tests/data/graphs/fit_rf_pg_0.json&discover=1

Question: should we remove that process graph and update it with the latest used in UC8? Using that one the tests are passing. Let me know if you are still using the save_ml_model somewhere, if not I will commit the fix.

Thanks for pointing this out! We replaced the save_ml_model process with using save_result(format= "GeoJSON") in order to make the pg more compliant to other process graphs. We still have the save_ml_model process available in the backend though - but I think we can remove it as the functionality is the same as in save_result.

For the tests, it should be fine to replace save_ml_model with save_result.

I will create a PR in our processes-spec to remove save_ml_model there.

@clausmichele
Copy link
Member Author

@ValentinaHutter tests are passing, I replaced the process graph with the latest version used for UC8.

@clausmichele clausmichele changed the title pydantic>2 draft pydantic>2 May 27, 2024
@ValentinaHutter ValentinaHutter merged commit 8c1af9e into Open-EO:main May 27, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants