You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After evaluating the current development experience using flytekit-java with some of our users. We've detected some improvements that could help to do the development experience more smooth. One of them is the difficulty that the users have to know what is the specific type of SdkBindingData when working with remote tasks. Currently, the user needs to jump into the remote code to check the input/output classes to know what is the specific type of each attribute. It could be very tedious because you need to find the repository of this remote task or jump using the IDE and check the input.
Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?
The final outcome is that we want to change the SdkBindingData to a typed version SdkBindingData<?>. This new version allows the user to know the inner type during the normal development and also helps to ensure that you are setting the current input to a task because if not you get a type mismatch error at compile time.
Motivation: Why do you think this is important?
After evaluating the current development experience using flytekit-java with some of our users. We've detected some improvements that could help to do the development experience more smooth. One of them is the difficulty that the users have to know what is the specific type of SdkBindingData when working with remote tasks. Currently, the user needs to jump into the remote code to check the input/output classes to know what is the specific type of each attribute. It could be very tedious because you need to find the repository of this remote task or jump using the IDE and check the input.
Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?
The final outcome is that we want to change the
SdkBindingData
to a typed versionSdkBindingData<?>
. This new version allows the user to know the inner type during the normal development and also helps to ensure that you are setting the current input to a task because if not you get a type mismatch error at compile time.Describe alternatives you've considered
no alternatives
Propose: Link/Inline OR Additional context
flyteorg/flytekit-java#164
Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: