-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Parameter Model Improvements #18641
Conversation
7d5e7e0
to
592f2c3
Compare
…dule. Add explicit exports to package galaxy.tool_util.verify.
243c258
to
e4d0457
Compare
e4d0457
to
a8a8199
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.
Looks great so far!
<!-- Selects have an implicit first option default in tool tests. | ||
Do they in the actual API also? | ||
--> |
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.
<!-- 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 ?
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.
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 |
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'm at least a little surprised 😅
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.
Just a first cut - I think it has slightly different behavior based on how it is configured. The tests will keep coming.
This PR was merged without a "kind/" label, please correct. |
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