-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
[PLT-1993] Fixed relationship label bug #1918
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
Conversation
9e321da
to
a7e2eb7
Compare
@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ | |||
import datetime |
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.
Relationships work different then other relationship so need a dedicated integration test
@@ -60,143 +60,19 @@ | |||
class NDLabel(BaseModel): | |||
annotations: AnnotationType | |||
|
|||
class _Relationship(BaseModel): |
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 stuff was used when we use to deserialized so not needed anymore also is very complicated
…hon into gu/fix_annotations
) | ||
|
||
|
||
def test_relationship(): | ||
with open("tests/data/assets/ndjson/relationship_import.json", "r") as file: |
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.
Simplified this test into two
@@ -233,19 +230,13 @@ def test_create_from_label_objects( | |||
), | |||
ObjectAnnotation( | |||
name="bbox", | |||
extra={ |
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 could be breaking but want a second opinion. The extra field breaks the annotation if a customer decides to add it. It is not shown that they need to do this in the docs, and I don't see why they would. The old complicated logic removed these but to simplify this I think it is best to just not support this type of extra key
Description
Please include a summary of the changes and the related issue. Please also include relevant motivation and context.
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
All Submissions
New Feature Submissions
Changes to Core Features