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
with doc in doc out, we introduced tokenizer_params in params, which is a dict in user input, but a json string in server response. direct comparing will cause a failure.
now the tokenizer_params is simple so I used a temp resolution in #2298 to convert the json string back to a dict, but that will likely fail after we introduced more configs in tokenizer_params: keys in json may be reordered and the resulting dict will no longer equal.
Why is this needed?
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
also fix schema comparison of tokenizer_params: tokenizer_params
returned by the server is in string format, while the user may provide
it in dict format. But this fix is not perfect and will likely fail when
tokenizer_params become more complicate due to possible json key
reordering.
@XuanYang-cn any idea? tracking this issue in
#2299
Signed-off-by: Buqian Zheng <[email protected]>
Is there an existing issue for this?
What would you like to be added?
currently we validate server schema by comparing with user provided schema
pymilvus/pymilvus/orm/collection.py
Line 134 in 76de0ab
with doc in doc out, we introduced
tokenizer_params
inparams
, which is a dict in user input, but a json string in server response. direct comparing will cause a failure.now the
tokenizer_params
is simple so I used a temp resolution in #2298 to convert the json string back to a dict, but that will likely fail after we introduced more configs intokenizer_params
: keys in json may be reordered and the resulting dict will no longer equal.Why is this needed?
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: