Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step #3774

schustmi · 2025-06-25T09:31:41Z

Describe changes

This PR makes it easier to specify a step operator/experiment tracker for a step. Instead of requiring the name of the step operator/experiment tracker in the configuration (which is already implemented that way to facilitate multiple components of a type in a stack), this PR allows users to simply pass step_operator=True or experiment_tracker=True. The step operator/experiment tracker of the active stack will then be selected automatically.

Pre-requisites

Please ensure you have done the following:

I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
I have added tests to cover my changes.
I have based my new branch on develop and the open PR is targeting develop. If your branch wasn't based on develop read Contribution guide on rebasing branch to develop.
IMPORTANT: I made sure that my changes are reflected properly in the following resources:
- ZenML Docs
- Dashboard: Needs to be communicated to the frontend team.
- Templates: Might need adjustments (that are not reflected in the template tests) in case of non-breaking changes and deprecations.
- Projects: Depending on the version dependencies, different projects might get affected.

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Other (add details above)

coderabbitai · 2025-06-25T09:31:48Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Explain this complex logic.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai explain this code block.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
@coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

htahir1

Great one but requires docs changes :-)! Maybe around here https://docs.zenml.io/concepts/steps_and_pipelines/configuration#direct-component-assignment

schustmi · 2025-06-26T09:41:23Z

Great one but requires docs changes :-)! Maybe around here https://docs.zenml.io/concepts/steps_and_pipelines/configuration#direct-component-assignment

Yep didn't have time yesterday, I updated your page and also all the other ones I could find to use this simpler method.

github-actions · 2025-06-26T09:45:50Z

Documentation Link Check Results

✅ Absolute links check passed
✅ Relative links check passed
_{Last checked: 2025-06-27 07:58:25 UTC}

github-actions · 2025-06-26T09:46:43Z

ZenML CLI Performance Comparison (Threshold: 1.0s, Timeout: 60s, Slow: 5s)

❌ Failed Commands on Current Branch (feature/easier-step-operator-configuration)

zenml stack list: Command failed on run 1 (exit code: 1)
zenml pipeline list: Command failed on run 1 (exit code: 1)
zenml model list: Command failed on run 1 (exit code: 1)

🚨 New Failures Introduced

The following commands fail on your branch but worked on the target branch:

zenml stack list
zenml pipeline list
zenml model list

Performance Comparison

Command	develop Time (s)	feature/easier-step-operator-configuration Time (s)	Difference	Status
`zenml --help`	1.501889 ± 0.016062	1.518653 ± 0.007348	+0.017s	✓ No significant change
`zenml model list`	Not tested	Failed	N/A	❌ Broken in current branch
`zenml pipeline list`	Not tested	Failed	N/A	❌ Broken in current branch
`zenml stack --help`	1.504179 ± 0.016217	1.506333 ± 0.013711	+0.002s	✓ No significant change
`zenml stack list`	Not tested	Failed	N/A	❌ Broken in current branch

Summary

Total commands analyzed: 5
Commands compared for timing: 2
Commands improved: 0 (0.0% of compared)
Commands degraded: 0 (0.0% of compared)
Commands unchanged: 2 (100.0% of compared)
Failed commands: 3 (NEW FAILURES INTRODUCED)
Timed out commands: 0
Slow commands: 0

Environment Info

Target branch: Linux 6.11.0-1015-azure
Current branch: Linux 6.11.0-1015-azure
Test timestamp: 2025-06-26T09:46:07Z
Timeout: 60 seconds
Slow threshold: 5 seconds

bcdurak

Looks good overall, left a tiny comment.

bcdurak · 2025-06-27T05:46:03Z

src/zenml/config/step_configurations.py

@@ -145,8 +145,8 @@ class StepConfigurationUpdate(StrictBaseModel):
    enable_artifact_metadata: Optional[bool] = None
    enable_artifact_visualization: Optional[bool] = None
    enable_step_logs: Optional[bool] = None
-    step_operator: Optional[str] = None
-    experiment_tracker: Optional[str] = None
+    step_operator: Optional[Union[bool, str]] = None


Are we planning to remove the str option in the future?

If so, should we add a deprecation warning somewhere if people still use it?

On the other hand, if we allow multiple instances of the same type of component in the future, it might make sense to keep the str option as well.

Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step

2b47c60

schustmi requested a review from bcdurak June 25, 2025 09:31

Better handling of missing step operator name

1ef324b

github-actions bot added internal To filter out internal PRs and issues enhancement New feature or request labels Jun 25, 2025

schustmi linked an issue Jun 25, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

[FEATURE]: fallback on default step_operator during pipeline runs. #3775

Open

1 task

htahir1 requested changes Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

Docs

ca32a4e

schustmi requested a review from htahir1 June 26, 2025 09:40

htahir1 approved these changes Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

schustmi added the breaking-change label Jun 26, 2025

bcdurak approved these changes Jun 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

htahir1 added this to ZenML Roadmap Jun 27, 2025

htahir1 moved this to In Progress in ZenML Roadmap Jun 27, 2025

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/easier-step-operator-configuration

9bb09de

htahir1 assigned schustmi Jun 30, 2025

htahir1 added the planned Planned for the short term label Jun 30, 2025

htahir1 moved this from In Progress to In Review / Merged in ZenML Roadmap Jun 30, 2025

schustmi merged commit da03b07 into develop Jul 3, 2025
55 of 56 checks passed

schustmi deleted the feature/easier-step-operator-configuration branch July 3, 2025 13:55

github-project-automation bot moved this from In Review to Done in ZenML Roadmap Jul 3, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step #3774

Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step #3774

Uh oh!

schustmi commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 25, 2025

Review skipped

Chat

Support

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

htahir1 left a comment

Uh oh!

schustmi commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

bcdurak left a comment

Uh oh!

bcdurak Jun 27, 2025

Uh oh!

bcdurak Jun 27, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step #3774

Easier option to enable a step operator/experiment tracker for a step #3774

Uh oh!

Conversation

schustmi commented Jun 25, 2025

Describe changes

Pre-requisites

Types of changes

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 25, 2025

Review skipped

Chat

Support

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

htahir1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

schustmi commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Documentation Link Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025

ZenML CLI Performance Comparison (Threshold: 1.0s, Timeout: 60s, Slow: 5s)

❌ Failed Commands on Current Branch (feature/easier-step-operator-configuration)

🚨 New Failures Introduced

Performance Comparison

Summary

Environment Info

Uh oh!

bcdurak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bcdurak Jun 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bcdurak Jun 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading