YDA-7031 - #756
Merged
Merged
Conversation
lwesterhof
marked this pull request as ready for review
June 29, 2026 09:30
stsnel
self-requested a review
July 2, 2026 12:19
stsnel
force-pushed
the
yda-7031
branch
4 times, most recently
from
July 13, 2026 15:18
1db3a19 to
284fa08
Compare
stsnel
force-pushed
the
yda-7031
branch
4 times, most recently
from
July 23, 2026 20:04
22712f0 to
c9ddfdb
Compare
stsnel
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2026
stsnel
left a comment
stsnel
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! 👍
Since I've added some code to the PR, I think it would be good to have an independent second review for this PR, with a focus on the commits that have been added later.
claravox
self-requested a review
July 31, 2026 10:52
claravox
requested changes
Aug 4, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding these unit tests, they help a lot!
Generally looks good, I am wondering if it would be helpful to use assertDictEqual in cases where we compare dictionaries (see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34414326/why-is-assertdictequal-needed-if-dicts-can-be-compared-by)
Also there is a merge conflict?
claravox
reviewed
Aug 4, 2026
Relax API type checks for numeric types, since JSON doesn't really distinguish between them.
Since bool("True") == True, but bool("False") == True as well
If the API call format is not accepted (e.g. because it can't be decoded or because a parameter is missing), return a specific error message. This is useful feedback for people trying to use the API, and does not expose any internal information.
Ensure that the API type checker recognizes old-style Union type syntax (e.g. Union[str, int] instead of str|int)
Ensure that API functions use Optional type annotations rather than new-style syntax (e.g. Optional[str] rather than str | None). Otherwise the API type checker can fail when running on Python 3.9.
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
3 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.
Needs UtrechtUniversity/yoda-portal#519