[FIX] correctly identify non-registry model classes #509
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mmahrouss
changed the title
mmahrouss
force-pushed
the
alpha-correctly-detect-abstract-models-mdms
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9b98bb3 to
911398a
Compare
We are trying to do that by checking _register = False. The check was failing because we handled only one evaluation. However, in latest versions we also have a type hint, which is its own evaluation. For that, we implement here a smarter search that only looks are evaluations with values. In that case, we should be more generic in catching cases. Consider using this as the check, instead of checking symbol trees
mmahrouss
force-pushed
the
alpha-correctly-detect-abstract-models-mdms
branch
from
911398a to
c5b999d
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We are trying to do that by checking _register = False.
The check was failing because we handled only one evaluation.
However, in latest versions we also have a type hint, which is its own evaluation.
For that, we implement here a smarter search that only looks are evaluations with values.
In that case, we should be more generic in catching cases.
For later: Consider using this as the check, instead of checking symbol trees