Skip to content

Conversation

@MaxBetzDLR
Copy link
Member

@MaxBetzDLR MaxBetzDLR commented Sep 4, 2023

Changes and Information

Please briefly list the changes made, additional Information and what the Reviewer should look out for:

Merge Request - Guideline Checklist

Please check our git workflow. Use the draft feature if the Pull Request is not yet ready to review.

Checks by code author

  • Every addressed issue is linked (use the "Closes #ISSUE" keyword below)
  • New code adheres to coding guidelines
  • No large data files have been added (files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)
  • Tests are added for new functionality and a local test run was successful
  • Appropriate documentation for new functionality has been added (Doxygen in the code and Markdown files if necessary)
  • Proper attention to licenses, especially no new third-party software with conflicting license has been added

Checks by code reviewer(s)

  • Corresponding issue(s) is/are linked and addressed
  • Code is clean of development artifacts (no deactivated or commented code lines, no debugging printouts, etc.)
  • Appropriate unit tests have been added, CI passes and code coverage is acceptable (did not decrease)
  • No large data files added in the whole history of commits(files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)

Closes #636

@MaxBetzDLR MaxBetzDLR linked an issue Sep 4, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
2 tasks
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 4, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.42%. Comparing base (abc02d7) to head (0059e92).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #761   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.42%   96.42%           
=======================================
  Files         130      130           
  Lines       10364    10364           
=======================================
  Hits         9994     9994           
  Misses        370      370           

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

Copy link
Member

@dabele dabele left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the general design, but have a few concerns about the implementation. I also don't understand some of the choices of TryPickling/ForcePickling/NoPickling, but I only added comments for some cases. Maybe try to explain your general reasoning there.

@MaxBetzDLR MaxBetzDLR requested a review from dabele October 31, 2023 11:02
@MaxBetzDLR MaxBetzDLR self-assigned this Nov 30, 2023
@MaxBetzDLR MaxBetzDLR requested a review from dabele January 9, 2024 12:28
@dabele dabele merged commit 4badae5 into main May 16, 2024
@dabele dabele deleted the 636-make-python-serialization-usable-again branch May 16, 2024 15:17
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.

Make Python serialization usable again

3 participants