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

Add utility function for adding additional weight formats to model spec #119

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jun 17, 2021

Conversation

constantinpape
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@constantinpape constantinpape marked this pull request as draft June 15, 2021 13:50
@constantinpape constantinpape marked this pull request as ready for review June 15, 2021 16:05
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@constantinpape constantinpape left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@FynnBe This adds another utility functionality to add weight formats to an existing model, and a workaround caused by the inconsistent serialization of raw_nodes, see #118.
In addition, the current code does not allow "model.yaml" as valid name, however this is expected by the zenodo uploader from @oeway. It would be nice to converge on something that works for the uploader.

The test failures are due to the fact that model yaml names are currently not checked.

bioimageio/spec/v0_3/utils.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bioimageio/spec/latest/build_spec.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@oeway
Copy link
Contributor

oeway commented Jun 16, 2021

Can we only support .yaml not .yml, I read it somewhere said it's recommended to use .yaml.

@constantinpape
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can we only support .yaml not .yml, I read it somewhere said it's recommended to use .yaml.

Fine with me.

@FynnBe
Copy link
Member

FynnBe commented Jun 17, 2021

Can we only support .yaml not .yml, I read it somewhere said it's recommended to use .yaml.

fine with me, too, but I would suggest to leave that for 0.4.0.

@FynnBe FynnBe mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2021
@FynnBe
Copy link
Member

FynnBe commented Jun 17, 2021

after resolving #119 (comment) this PR should looks ready to merge to me

@constantinpape constantinpape merged commit 7c70d8c into master Jun 17, 2021
@FynnBe FynnBe deleted the weight-utils branch June 17, 2021 15:46
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.

3 participants