Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 flytekit-omegaconf plugin #2299
Add flytekit-omegaconf plugin #2299
Changes from 6 commits
d0149a9
f65136a
76297da
20e2281
9574b44
a568a82
61fcbab
4395540
8864f70
0785c83
167a28c
12a779e
a783c8d
5abe25d
2feac8e
debe2f7
4fdb7e5
08f9a80
40af6f3
9c6db69
1e15009
e6e1896
f8e945c
34fd0a4
212ee86
0a745d0
75dabed
257e32d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I find it untypical for flytekit that users import type transformers to configure their behaviour. Would the user have to register
transformer_slim
in this example with theTypeEngine
again?Do I understand it correctly that these are two mechanisms that achieve exactly the same thing? If yes, what do you think of only providing one mechanism?
I personally find the
SharedConfig
singleton a bit awkward as well :SAs an analogy, setting the start method for multiprocessing comes to my mind:
Do you think it would be possible to simply do:
This would feel more idiomatic to me.
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.
I think the second example configures the mode of the (dict) transformer globally, whereas the first one only configures the specific instance.
Either way, I can't think of a use-case where this would really be useful, I think we can configure it globally across all transformers, the way you suggested. Any objections @SebS94 ?
Will come back to you once I implement it (ran out of time now).
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.
Addressed in e6e1896
We provide global mode and a context manager for ability to control it locally still.
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.
As discussed here, shell we remove the
mode
here and only provide a global mode?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.
bump.
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.
Addressed in e6e1896
We provide global mode and a context manager for ability to control it locally still.
Please resolve the conversation if you think this is a suitable solution.