Skip to content

Conversation

andped10
Copy link
Contributor

We need to keep the unique_name in order to be able to reproduce the object.

We are still able to get a copy by using a dict where we skip the unique_name

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This pull request does not contain a valid label. Please add one of the following labels: ['chore', 'fix', 'bugfix', 'bug', 'enhancement', 'feature', 'dependencies', 'documentation']

@andped10 andped10 added the bugfix PR label label Sep 27, 2024
@andped10 andped10 changed the base branch from master to develop September 27, 2024 07:48
Copy link
Member

@henrikjacobsenfys henrikjacobsenfys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me

@andped10 andped10 merged commit 6c44d07 into develop Oct 1, 2024
39 checks passed
@andped10
Copy link
Contributor Author

andped10 commented Oct 1, 2024

@damskii9992 Please confirm that these merged changes are OK

@andped10 andped10 deleted the unique_name_bug branch October 1, 2024 09:58
@damskii9992
Copy link
Contributor

@damskii9992 Please confirm that these merged changes are OK

Changes are OK for now but might lead to issues in the future.
Explaining here for documentation: If a user has already created an object with a unique_name: "BaseObj_0" and they then try to load an object which was saved with the same unique_name, this will fail.
To circumvent this, we might want to add an option to overwrite the loaded objects unique_name and add a proper error message to the user telling them to do this in case of name clashes upon loading.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bugfix PR label

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants