We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Currently we have
TAttr = TypeVar("TAttr", bound=Mapping[str, Any]) TItem = TypeVar("TItem", bound=Union["GroupSpec", "ArraySpec"]) class GroupSpec(NodeSpecV2, Generic[TAttr, TItem]): attributes: TAttr members: dict[str, TItem]
This excludes the key space of members from the type domain (the keys can be any strings).
What if we did this instead:
TAttr = TypeVar("TAttr", bound=Mapping[str, Any]) TItem = TypeVar("TItem", bound=Dict[str, Union["GroupSpec", "ArraySpec"]]) class GroupSpec(NodeSpecV2, Generic[TAttr, TItem]): attributes: TAttr members: TItem
I think this would enable requiring that Zarr groups contain nodes with specific names, e.g.
class MyMembers(TypedDict): s0: ArraySpec[ArrayAttrs] s1: ArraySpec[ArrayAttrs] GroupSpec[MyAttributes, MyMembers](...)
But it's not clear to how to make this play nice with pydantic models, since they can't be coerced to Dict[str, blablabla]
Dict[str, blablabla]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Currently we have
This excludes the key space of members from the type domain (the keys can be any strings).
What if we did this instead:
I think this would enable requiring that Zarr groups contain nodes with specific names, e.g.
But it's not clear to how to make this play nice with pydantic models, since they can't be coerced to
Dict[str, blablabla]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: