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

cast None -> {} in KeyValueLabels #16067

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024
Merged

cast None -> {} in KeyValueLabels #16067

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

zzstoatzz
Copy link
Collaborator

@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz commented Nov 20, 2024

closes #16066

should mitigate the immediate problem of validation errors but its not yet clear to me why labels=None is passed

and also moves the type to prefect.types

@github-actions github-actions bot added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 20, 2024
Comment on lines -1191 to -1211
class BlockSchema(ObjectBaseModel):
"""An ORM representation of a block schema."""

checksum: str = Field(default=..., description="The block schema's unique checksum")
fields: Dict[str, Any] = Field(
default_factory=dict, description="The block schema's field schema"
)
block_type_id: Optional[UUID] = Field(default=..., description="A block type ID")
block_type: Optional[BlockType] = Field(
default=None, description="The associated block type"
)
capabilities: List[str] = Field(
default_factory=list,
description="A list of Block capabilities",
)
version: str = Field(
default=DEFAULT_BLOCK_SCHEMA_VERSION,
description="Human readable identifier for the block schema",
)


Copy link
Collaborator Author

@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

unrelated tidyness: this was duplicated from L975 (it was an exact duplicate)

@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz marked this pull request as draft November 20, 2024 03:46
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Nov 20, 2024

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16067 will not alter performance

Comparing opt-otel (c309bfd) with main (41a40cd)

Summary

✅ 3 untouched benchmarks

@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2024 03:58
@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz added the fix A fix for a bug in an existing feature label Nov 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@bunchesofdonald bunchesofdonald left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks Nate!

I also have this labels PR I've been working up (#16050) that uses a similar pattern. Feel free to merge this one and I'll deal with the conflicts on my side.

src/prefect/types/__init__.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
zzstoatzz and others added 2 commits November 20, 2024 09:28
@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz enabled auto-merge (squash) November 20, 2024 15:43
@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz merged commit 2d3d12f into main Nov 20, 2024
37 checks passed
@zzstoatzz zzstoatzz deleted the opt-otel branch November 20, 2024 15:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working fix A fix for a bug in an existing feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Adding OTEL labels on flow runs breaks ECS push work pool workers
3 participants