-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
issue #693 add search for schema and find parameters from the backend #698
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
issue #693 add search for schema and find parameters from the backend #698
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In this PR you add a lot of utility functions. A couple of notes on that:
- they are al public at the moment, so adding them adds the burden to keep/maintain/support them. In that sense, they should also get good test coverage.
- some of the seem quite tailored for the specific use case of this PR, while they are named very generically
also note that we already have parsing functionality for process definitions: e.g. see starting point openeo.internal.processes.Process.from_dict()
. I think that should eliminate the need for all these new utility functions
I think it's also important that the core goal of this PR gets unit tests coverage
The test fail because of No mock address: GET https://oeo.test/processes. Do I have to change the test and add the address or is there another way to solve it? |
this feature indeed impacts existing tests
doing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
some quick notes
…ore compact, and remove get_schema_from_process_parameter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a couple of additional notes
elif isinstance(self.schema,dict): | ||
if name in self.schema: | ||
result = self.schema[name] | ||
return result |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't look compatible with how json schema works.
For example, this methods should allow to extract the options from these example use cases:
- https://github.com/Open-EO/openeo-processes/blob/6141771129d58d2a292db3b91d80c812c49f4e52/resample_spatial.json#L79-L97
- https://github.com/Open-EO/openeo-processes/blob/6141771129d58d2a292db3b91d80c812c49f4e52/proposals/sar_backscatter.json#L36-L51
- https://github.com/Open-EO/openeo-processes/blob/6141771129d58d2a292db3b91d80c812c49f4e52/apply_kernel.json#L54-L67
For example, the caller should not have to specify a name. The implementation should extract the options from the "enum" listing(s) in the schema data
], | ||
) | ||
@pytest.mark.parametrize(("key", "expected"), [("x1", "y1"), ("x2", "y2"), ("x4", None)]) | ||
def test_get_enum_options(schema, key, expected): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To parameterize this test, I would use more realistic use cases, e.g. the ones linked above
] | ||
try: | ||
schema = Process.from_dict(self.connection.describe_process("sar_backscatter")).get_parameter("coefficient").schema | ||
coefficient_options = schema.get_enum_options("enum") + [None] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On top of getting the options, we should also get the default value from the schema. It is now hardcoded to "gamma0-terrain" (above), but that should also be dynamic
"summary": "Computes backscatter from SAR input", | ||
"parameters": [ | ||
{ | ||
"default": "gamma0-terrain", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test should also check that this default value is picked
#693