Refactor Gateway provider unimplemented endpoint errors #10822
Conversation
|
Documentation preview for 4171e1e will be available here when this CircleCI job completes successfully. More info
|
github-actions
bot
added
area/deployments
mlflow/gateway/providers/base.py
Outdated
| raise HTTPException( | ||
| status_code=404, | ||
| detail=f"The chat route is not available for {self.NAME} models.", | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think 501 status makes more sense, but not sure if this will break any user code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. 501 (not implemented) makes more sense. Let's change it.
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fu <hfu.gabriel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fu <hfu.gabriel@gmail.com>
mlflow/gateway/providers/base.py
Outdated
| raise NotImplementedError | ||
| raise HTTPException( | ||
| status_code=404, | ||
| detail=f"The completions streaming route is not available for {self.NAME} models.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| detail=f"The completions streaming route is not available for {self.NAME} models.", | |
| detail=f"The completions streaming route is not implemented for {self.NAME} models.", |
Is not implemented more accurate?
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fu <hfu.gabriel@gmail.com>
mlflow/gateway/providers/base.py
Outdated
| if not hasattr(self, "NAME"): | ||
| raise TypeError(f"'NAME' is not defined for {self.__class__.__name__}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a big fan of this. Is there a way to enforce the NAME attribute?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use an abstract property instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think abstract property can do. If we don't do any validation, we'll need to rely solely on tests (which are not 100% covered) or get unexpected runtime errors
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or set NAME to an empty string in BaseProvider and validate it's overridden in sub classes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sure, let's use an empty string :)
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fu <hfu.gabriel@gmail.com>
馃洜 DevTools 馃洜
Install mlflow from this PR
Checkout with GitHub CLI
Related Issues/PRs
#xxxWhat changes are proposed in this pull request?
Remove need to add a function to raise exception in each subclass
Make
SubProvider.NAMEmandatory fieldRemove inconsistencies between unimplemented errors like
and
How is this PR tested?
Does this PR require documentation update?
Release Notes
Is this a user-facing change?
What component(s), interfaces, languages, and integrations does this PR affect?
Components
area/artifacts: Artifact stores and artifact loggingarea/build: Build and test infrastructure for MLflowarea/deployments: MLflow Deployments client APIs, server, and third-party Deployments integrationsarea/docs: MLflow documentation pagesarea/examples: Example codearea/model-registry: Model Registry service, APIs, and the fluent client calls for Model Registryarea/models: MLmodel format, model serialization/deserialization, flavorsarea/recipes: Recipes, Recipe APIs, Recipe configs, Recipe Templatesarea/projects: MLproject format, project running backendsarea/scoring: MLflow Model server, model deployment tools, Spark UDFsarea/server-infra: MLflow Tracking server backendarea/tracking: Tracking Service, tracking client APIs, autologgingInterface
area/uiux: Front-end, user experience, plotting, JavaScript, JavaScript dev serverarea/docker: Docker use across MLflow's components, such as MLflow Projects and MLflow Modelsarea/sqlalchemy: Use of SQLAlchemy in the Tracking Service or Model Registryarea/windows: Windows supportLanguage
language/r: R APIs and clientslanguage/java: Java APIs and clientslanguage/new: Proposals for new client languagesIntegrations
integrations/azure: Azure and Azure ML integrationsintegrations/sagemaker: SageMaker integrationsintegrations/databricks: Databricks integrationsHow should the PR be classified in the release notes? Choose one:
rn/none- No description will be included. The PR will be mentioned only by the PR number in the "Small Bugfixes and Documentation Updates" sectionrn/breaking-change- The PR will be mentioned in the "Breaking Changes" sectionrn/feature- A new user-facing feature worth mentioning in the release notesrn/bug-fix- A user-facing bug fix worth mentioning in the release notesrn/documentation- A user-facing documentation change worth mentioning in the release notes