Conversation
andrewnester
requested review from
anton-107,
denik,
pietern and
shreyas-goenka
as code owners
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
| genkit update-sdk | ||
| [ ! -f tagging.py ] || mv tagging.py internal/genkit/tagging.py | ||
| [ ! -f .github/workflows/next-changelog.yml ] || rm .github/workflows/next-changelog.yml | ||
| pushd experimental/python && make codegen |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we use popd anywhere, lets use cd here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nvm, I see this is what @kanterov recommends. Not sure why though.
|
@andrewnester where do we do git commit? code generation should run before that |
| """ | ||
| :meta private: [EXPERIMENTAL] | ||
| """ | ||
| """""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kanterov Can you take a look at why this yields an empty doc block?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pietern it works as intended, class doesn't have experimental annotation and no description in JSON schema
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't empty docstrings be omitted from the output instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From what I remember missing class doc string breaks the parsing of field doc strings
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ack, thanks for clarifying
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure it's still needed. I there was a problem with VSCode, but I have found that it's resolved now. Databricks SDK doesn't add empty doc strings, at least we should keep both consistent, I will create a PR to remove empty doc strings.
4 participants
Changes
Generated new Python types by running
pushd experimental/python && make codegenWhy
This PR #2788 introduced new task types but Python types were not generated causing schema checks to fail.