Raise when source_software_version is set without source_software - #63
Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
Thanks @h-mayorquin ! |
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
PoseEstimationstoressource_software_versionas theversionattribute on thesource_softwaredataset. When the version was passed without the software name, there was no dataset for the attribute to attach to, so the value was accepted at construction and then silently dropped on write, with no warning and no error. Nothing about the storage layout changes here and no capability is removed: version plus software name has always round-tripped correctly and still does. This just turns the impossible case into aValueErrorat construction time instead of a quiet data loss at write time.I scoped this to
PoseEstimationbecause that is the only affected type onmain.MultiCameraPoseEstimation(currently in #57) has the same attribute-on-dataset layout and the same flaw; I would rather let that branch pick up an equivalent guard once it merges than widen this PR across branches.