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

Parameter Model Improvements #18641

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 6, 2024

Conversation

jmchilton
Copy link
Member

See individual commits - all enhancements stemming from downstream work on validating workflows and tool test cases with the models introduced in #18524 as part of the broader structured tool state work #17393 / https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQOLpLN54CjrB-wbD463XqzvUm-dNB8vTXUFBExh_2o/edit.

How to test the changes?

(Select all options that apply)

License

  • I agree to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license.

@jmchilton jmchilton force-pushed the model_parameter_improvements_1 branch 3 times, most recently from 243c258 to e4d0457 Compare August 5, 2024 17:52
@jmchilton jmchilton force-pushed the model_parameter_improvements_1 branch from e4d0457 to a8a8199 Compare August 5, 2024 22:38
Copy link
Member

@mvdbeek mvdbeek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great so far!

Comment on lines +27 to +29
<!-- Selects have an implicit first option default in tool tests.
Do they in the actual API also?
-->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
<!-- Selects have an implicit first option default in tool tests.
Do they in the actual API also?
-->
<!-- Selects implicitly default to the first option as the default option.
Additional verification in test_select_first_by_default API test.
-->

I wonder if this is good behavior overall ? Say we're missing any valid options, when would we catch this during validation ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is all green enough - I'll fix this comment as the first thing I do in my next model rev - I am sure a new PR will be open this week. Thanks


@property
def request_requires_value(self) -> bool:
return False
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm at least a little surprised 😅

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a first cut - I think it has slightly different behavior based on how it is configured. The tests will keep coming.

@jmchilton jmchilton marked this pull request as ready for review August 6, 2024 15:07
@jmchilton jmchilton merged commit e0b6532 into galaxyproject:dev Aug 6, 2024
52 of 55 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 24.2 milestone Aug 6, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 6, 2024

This PR was merged without a "kind/" label, please correct.

@nsoranzo nsoranzo deleted the model_parameter_improvements_1 branch August 6, 2024 21:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants