WIP: New workflow syntax #2629
WIP: New workflow syntax #2629
Conversation
|
|
||
| class Join(Node): | ||
| pass | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we planning to change the current Node class and define Map and Join?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is just prep for my syntax suggestion from #2539, where Join(node, ...) is equivalent to node.join(...).
| self._mappers = {} | ||
| self._joiners = {} | ||
|
|
||
| def map(self, field, values=None): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that field is a "mapper" itself (either list, tuple or string), is that right? Not sure about values, do you want to be a dictionary? From the Satra example I understand that you can provide values of some of the fields from the mapper (i.e. field in your syntax).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not actually positive of what I was doing here. Probably should have responded more promptly. :-) In any event, I clearly didn't finish this function (see L1076).
I believe what I was suggesting is that you could do:
node.map('a', [1, 2, 3, 4])
# or, where node.inputs.a takes the output of another node
node.map('a')| self._nodes[name] = node | ||
| self._last_added = name | ||
|
|
||
| def map(self, field, node=None, values=None): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure what is the meaning of node. it shouldn't be just self._last_added?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here I'm almost certain the idea is that I could do:
wf.add(node).map(<something over node>)
# or
wf.add(node)
...
wf.map(<something over node>, node=node)There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I see. Didn't think about this syntax.
|
@effigies fyi: I was fixing already some exceptions etc. djarecka@682248a |
| pass | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def is_function(obj): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is nitpicking, but the builtin callable can be used here instead of defining another function.
Work started during OHBM 2018 hackathon.
Closely following discussion in #2539. The goal is to start with @satra's syntax, and incorporate mine as a syntactic sugar. We'll see if they're equally implementable, or if there are inherent limits or affordances of each. Neither approach was fully consistent between comments, so this is somewhat an exegetical exercise.
Should merge with @djarecka's work on unifying nodes and workflows, and adding mapping and joining syntax.