Repository navigation
fix: add missing num field to QuaboUidDome to match control's model - #8
Merged
Merged
Conversation
control/utils/pydantic_config_models.py's QuaboUidDome gained an injected `num` field (assigned by config_file.py at load time), but pypff's independently-vendored copy of the same model was never updated to match. Since every collected run's saved quabo_uids.json snapshot includes "num", pypff's stricter BaseStrictModel (extra= 'forbid') rejected it wholesale, breaking `pseti show pff` config display with a spurious "Skipping config quabo_uids.json" warning. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
control/utils/pydantic_config_models.py'sQuaboUidDomegained an injectednumfield (assigned byconfig_file.pyat load time), butpypff's independently-vendored copy of the same model (pypff/src/pypff/models.py) was never updated to match. Since every collected run's savedquabo_uids.jsonsnapshot includes"num", pypff's stricterBaseStrictModel(extra='forbid') rejected it wholesale, breakingpseti show pff's config display with a spuriousSkipping config quabo_uids.json: ... Extra inputs are not permitted [type=extra_forbidden]warning.Found and fixed while validating the
test-psetiHITL deployment on real hardware —pseti show pff <run_dir>on a real collected run surfaced the warning.pypffintentionally duplicates these config models rather than depending oncontrol(avoiding a hard cross-repo coupling), so this fix keeps both copies in sync rather than introducing a shared dependency.Changes
src/pypff/models.py:QuaboUidDomegainsnum: int | None = None, matchingcontrol.utils.pydantic_config_models.QuaboUidDome.Test plan
PanosetiRun(...).configsno longer skipsquabo_uids.jsonfor a real collected run directory containing"num": 0.🤖 Generated with Claude Code