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

Support string based UDFs #2195

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 30, 2024
Merged

Support string based UDFs #2195

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 30, 2024

Conversation

jackgerrits
Copy link
Member

Why are these changes needed?

  • This is intentionally undocumented since I am not certain about the interface and want tinyra and ag studio to try it first

Related issue number

Checks

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.90566% with 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 49.70%. Comparing base (dd61eaa) to head (f57d5fb).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
autogen/coding/func_with_reqs.py 84.31% 5 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2195       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   37.97%   49.70%   +11.73%     
===========================================
  Files          75       77        +2     
  Lines        7587     7757      +170     
  Branches     1634     1798      +164     
===========================================
+ Hits         2881     3856      +975     
+ Misses       4463     3582      -881     
- Partials      243      319       +76     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittest 14.34% <43.39%> (?)
unittests 48.63% <84.90%> (+10.68%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@gagb
Copy link
Collaborator

gagb commented Mar 30, 2024

checking it now!

Copy link
Collaborator

@gagb gagb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

worked for me! Let's get this merged soon!

@gagb
Copy link
Collaborator

gagb commented Mar 30, 2024

Small comment: currently all function modules get stored in work_dir. It would be useful if I could provide a custom path within work_dir to use. The reason is that UDFs create a file per function so the number of files in work_dir increases rapidly. In an end app could be displaying files from work_dir to users;

@sonichi sonichi added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 30, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 7b5fd51 Mar 30, 2024
63 of 75 checks passed
@jackgerrits
Copy link
Member Author

Small comment: currently all function modules get stored in work_dir. It would be useful if I could provide a custom path within work_dir to use. The reason is that UDFs create a file per function so the number of files in work_dir increases rapidly. In an end app could be displaying files from work_dir to users;

It should only be a single file for all functions - could you provide more details about when you saw multiple?

@jackgerrits jackgerrits deleted the string_based_udfs branch April 1, 2024 17:32
marklysze pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
whiskyboy pushed a commit to whiskyboy/autogen that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2024
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.

4 participants