-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 669
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
rfc: type metadata #1855
rfc: type metadata #1855
Conversation
cc @eapolinario / @EngHabu. This looks pretty cool to me, just that the metadata field may be overloaded, especially in the dataclass case? |
d182642
to
4fb965e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome! I've a few questions if you can please take a look
], | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## 3 Proposed Implementation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we include the work here to strip them in here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you help me understand why?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is so that the backend representation at runtime does not bloat and is important to remain efficient and performant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome! one comment (to introduce a new field/message) and then let's merge it!
rfc/system/1855-type-metadata.md
Outdated
Users of flyte wish to have access to arbitrary parameter metadata specified in | ||
typing annotations. | ||
|
||
The `LiteralType` definition in flyteidl already has a `metadata` field in its |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per the discussion in the comments here and on chat, I think it's better to introduce a new message and a corresponding field (and potentially deprecating metadata altogether eventually)...
And the rest of the spec look great.
message TypeMetadata {
google.protobuf.Struct annotations = 1;
// string type_hint = 2;
// google.protobuf.Struct json_schema = 2;
...
}
message LiteralType
{
...
TypeMetadata metadata = 6; // For now I guess we have to call it type_metadata
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what purpose does replacing
google.protobuf.Struct metadata = 6;
with a nested message serve. Its just one more level of unwrapping for the exact same information?
Also, doesn't adding an additional field make more sense.?We don't break support for existing use of metadata
for flyte specific implementation but allows for use of annotations as intended in a way that doesn't conflict.
Signed-off-by: Kenny Workman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kenny Workman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kenny Workman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kenny Workman <[email protected]>
2d963c2
to
38e1feb
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome! #excited
No description provided.