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

No Output Requested while materializer should lead to error #810

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024

Conversation

swapdewalkar
Copy link
Contributor

@swapdewalkar swapdewalkar commented Apr 8, 2024

Address #796

Changes

Added a check to to throw Error if materializer are 0.
Added Test case for the same

How I tested this

Unit Tested
Run Example on local as well
test_no_materializer

Notes

Checklist

  • PR has an informative and human-readable title (this will be pulled into the release notes)
  • Changes are limited to a single goal (no scope creep)
  • Code passed the pre-commit check & code is left cleaner/nicer than when first encountered.
  • Any change in functionality is tested
  • New functions are documented (with a description, list of inputs, and expected output)
  • Placeholder code is flagged / future TODOs are captured in comments
  • Project documentation has been updated if adding/changing functionality.

Comment on lines 373 to 377
dr.materialize(
from_.json(target="input_data", path=value(path_in)),
additional_vars=["processed_data"],
inputs={"output_path": str(path_out)},
)
Copy link
Collaborator

@skrawcz skrawcz Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should still work because processed_data was requested as additional vars. So this means the check in the code isn't in the right place or needs another clause.

But this should fail as there is nothing requested to be computed:

        dr.materialize(
            from_.json(target="input_data", path=value(path_in)),
            inputs={"output_path": str(path_out)},
        )

So good to have both cases to test.

Copy link
Collaborator

@skrawcz skrawcz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

hamilton/driver.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@skrawcz skrawcz merged commit 939e3eb into DAGWorks-Inc:main Apr 9, 2024
13 of 23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants