Add optional labels to float fields#174
Merged
skearnes merged 13 commits intoopen-reaction-database:masterfrom May 28, 2020
Merged
Add optional labels to float fields#174skearnes merged 13 commits intoopen-reaction-database:masterfrom
skearnes merged 13 commits intoopen-reaction-database:masterfrom
Conversation
connorcoley
approved these changes
May 28, 2020
skearnes
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2020
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #156
See the announcement and the docs.
Notes:
CopyFromto overwrite an existing message containing anoptionalfield causes a segmentation fault. See the changes to message_helpers.py. This could be specific to messages inoneofgroups.unitsortypevalues.PressureControl.typeto PRESSURIZED in example_Perera.ipynb.Questions:
optionalas well (and we could drop UNSPECIFIED entirely). If we did decide to make this change, we should make sure that the web form includes an extra "empty" value as the default that means "do not set anything in the generated proto" so we can tell the difference. Personally I think leaving UNSPECIFIED as a default value that is never actually used makes some sense since it avoids having to do the checks for explicit presence.