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

[DS][25/n] Narrow extra_state type #21613

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 3, 2024
Merged

Conversation

OwenKephart
Copy link
Contributor

Summary & Motivation

As title -- we only need a subset of the full PackableValue type, and can always widen this later

How I Tested These Changes

Copy link
Contributor Author

OwenKephart commented May 2, 2024

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @OwenKephart and the rest of your teammates on Graphite Graphite

@@ -31,6 +30,10 @@

T = TypeVar("T")

# state objects that store arbitrary data between ticks
# if a need for new types arises, they can be added here, as long as they are serializable
SerializableState = Union[None, AssetSubset, Sequence[ValidAssetSubset]]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should assign a name to this union. It's too general of name given what it is.

Can we just canonicalize to 'Optional[Sequence[ValidAssetSubset]]`?

Copy link
Member

@schrockn schrockn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

back to your q. the type of this raises additional questions

@OwenKephart
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fine with not giving it a name, but I don't want to mess with disallowing a singular AssetSubset at the moment (as we have plenty of already-stored information that is just a single AssetSubset)

@schrockn
Copy link
Member

schrockn commented May 2, 2024

Makes complete sense to not change then given that we are dealing with already persisted data 👍🏻

@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Remove_all_AssetSubset_references_from_the_context_and_result_objects branch from 6baf92a to e5e6ed8 Compare May 2, 2024 23:59
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Narrow_extra_state_type branch from 2baaba6 to bf37d9b Compare May 3, 2024 00:00
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Remove_all_AssetSubset_references_from_the_context_and_result_objects branch from e5e6ed8 to 41e4314 Compare May 3, 2024 16:58
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Narrow_extra_state_type branch from bf37d9b to c3c890f Compare May 3, 2024 16:58
@OwenKephart OwenKephart requested a review from schrockn May 3, 2024 17:41
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Remove_all_AssetSubset_references_from_the_context_and_result_objects branch from 41e4314 to a03b80f Compare May 3, 2024 21:11
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Narrow_extra_state_type branch from c3c890f to 3ccd4be Compare May 3, 2024 21:11
Copy link
Contributor Author

OwenKephart commented May 3, 2024

Merge activity

  • May 3, 5:31 PM EDT: @OwenKephart started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
  • May 3, 6:30 PM EDT: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
  • May 3, 6:31 PM EDT: @OwenKephart merged this pull request with Graphite.

@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Remove_all_AssetSubset_references_from_the_context_and_result_objects branch from a03b80f to 2fb533a Compare May 3, 2024 22:24
Base automatically changed from 05-02-Remove_all_AssetSubset_references_from_the_context_and_result_objects to master May 3, 2024 22:28
@OwenKephart OwenKephart force-pushed the 05-02-Narrow_extra_state_type branch from 3ccd4be to 7b5f20e Compare May 3, 2024 22:29
@OwenKephart OwenKephart merged commit 4356834 into master May 3, 2024
1 check was pending
@OwenKephart OwenKephart deleted the 05-02-Narrow_extra_state_type branch May 3, 2024 22:31
cmpadden pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2024
## Summary & Motivation

As title -- we only need a subset of the full PackableValue type, and can always widen this later

## How I Tested These Changes
danielgafni pushed a commit to danielgafni/dagster that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2024
## Summary & Motivation

As title -- we only need a subset of the full PackableValue type, and can always widen this later

## How I Tested These Changes
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