cloudpickle isinstance() #487
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new helper function Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Backend as Backend
participant FutureItem as FutureItem
Backend->>Backend: Call backend_load_file
Backend->>Backend: Use _isinstance(arg, FutureItem)
Backend->>Backend: Process apply_dict["args"]
Backend->>Backend: Process apply_dict["kwargs"]
Backend->>Backend: Return results
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
executorlib/cache/backend.py (1)
67-68: Consider alternative approaches to handle cloudpickle serializationThe introduction of a custom
isinstanceimplementation suggests underlying issues with cloudpickle serialization ofFutureItemtypes. This workaround, while functional, might be masking deeper architectural concerns.Consider these alternative approaches:
- Register custom reducers with cloudpickle for
FutureItem- Use a more robust serialization protocol (e.g., dill)
- Implement proper
__reduce__methods in the affected classesWould you like help implementing any of these alternatives?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
executorlib/cache/backend.py(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
executorlib/cache/backend.py (2)
67-68: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
The _isinstance implementation needs improvement
The current implementation has several technical limitations:
- Missing docstring explaining why this non-standard approach is needed
- No handling of inheritance relationships
- Potential issues with fully qualified names vs simple names
- Type hints could be more specific
Consider this improved implementation:
def _isinstance(obj: Any, cls: type) -> bool:
- return str(obj.__class__) == str(cls)
+ """
+ Custom isinstance implementation to handle cloudpickle serialization edge cases.
+
+ Note: This is a workaround for [describe the specific issue with cloudpickle].
+ """
+ try:
+ return obj.__class__.__name__ == cls.__name__
+ except AttributeError:
+ return FalseLet's check if there are any other similar type checking patterns in the codebase:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for other potential type checking patterns that might need similar handling
rg "isinstance\(.+,\s*FutureItem\)" --type py21-22:
Replacing isinstance() with string comparison is potentially fragile
The replacement of Python's built-in isinstance() with a custom string comparison-based implementation could lead to several issues:
- It breaks proper inheritance checking
- It's sensitive to class naming and module paths
- It might fail with metaclasses or dynamic types
If this change is meant to address cloudpickle serialization issues, consider:
- Using
cloudpickle.loads()to reconstruct the original type - Adding explicit type registration in cloudpickle
- Using
type(obj).__name__ == cls.__name__if string comparison is absolutely necessary
Let's verify if this affects any inherited types:
Also applies to: 25-26
The regular
isinstance()fails when restoring theFutureItem()objects from the HDF5 file. So we implement a modified_isinstance()function to address this issue.Summary by CodeRabbit
FutureItemtype checks without altering existing functionalities.