-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
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 serialization of Params with set data type #19267
Conversation
there's a bit of awkwardness with the |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hmm, I think the test failures are related to the change and need to be fixed.
1a38d3b
to
33ac787
Compare
fe97aba
to
fc7f4f5
Compare
lgtm overall. Also nice work in handling the backward compatibility 👍 |
b9818f9
to
01eacb4
Compare
@dstandish Can you take a look at the failing tests please |
yup will do |
fyi i updated Param init to check whether the |
This is a solution for #19096 Previously, the serialization of params did not run the param value through the `_serialize` function, resulting in non-json-serializable dictionaries. This manifested when a user, for example, tried to use params with a default value of type `set`. Here we change the logic to run the param value through the serialization process. And I add a test for the `set` case. closes #19096 (cherry picked from commit 8512e05)
This is a solution for #19096
Previously, the serialization of params did not run the param value through the
_serialize
function, resulting in non-json-serializable dictionaries. This manifested when a user, for example, tried to use params with a default value of typeset
.Here we change the logic to run the param value through the serialization process. And I add a test for the
set
case.Could def use extra set of eyes on schema definition. btw i added hook for formatting this -- i can do that in separate pr if that's helpful.