New log_metadata function, new oneof filtering, additional run_metadata filtering

[bcdurak]

Describe changes

This PR features three main changes:

The new log_metadata function

Now, all the metadata-creating functions are gathered under one method called log_metadata. It is possible to call this method with different inputs to log run metadata for artifact versions, model versions, steps, and runs.

The oneof filtering

This allows us to filter entities using a new operator called oneof. You can possibly use this with IDs, tags, and all the other attributes like PipelineRunFilter(tag='oneof:["cats", "dogs"]').

The run_metadata filtering

The custom filtering logic for runs, steps, artifact-, and model versions has been improved. Now, you can filter these entities using filters like PipelineRunFilter(run_metadata={"accuracy": "gt:0.85"}).

Further changes

• The old metadata creation functions have been deprecated.

The remaining TODOs

• Docs updates.
• Template updates.
• Project updates.

Pre-requisites

Please ensure you have done the following:

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
• If my change requires a change to docs, I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have based my new branch on develop and the open PR is targeting develop. If your branch wasn't based on develop read Contribution guide on rebasing branch to develop.
• If my changes require changes to the dashboard, these changes are communicated/requested.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Other (add details above)

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[gitguardian]

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
Once a secret has been leaked into a git repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.

---

^{_{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}}

[schustmi]

I'm not sure that I like the current logic: If this is being called from a step and the user provides an artifact name, don't you think we should also link it to the pipeline run, step run and model version?

[avishniakov]

I'm afraid of the growing data duplication in the metadata model. We checked that currently the value field is an unrestricted text, what if the user logs a fatty metadata value and then it is magically multiplied into 4 occurrences? It is not very scalable, IMO, and some solution to reuse the values shall be in place if go this route. I have verbaly shared my thoughts with @bcdurak on that already.

[schustmi]

Yes 100% agreed

[bcdurak]

I am investigating this atm. Feel free to review everything else.

[bcdurak]

This will be solved in a follow-up PR.

[avishniakov]

My comments are addressed or rejected, so good to go from my end, as soon as tests are all green (I shipped fixes for all of them, besides mac 3.9 slow - ignore that one)