Release v2.18.0 #8422
Merged
Release v2.18.0 #8422
Conversation
This file contains 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
![cvat-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/406724?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Update develop after v2.17.0
…cuts adjusted according to different Scopes, with the addition of Local Storage (#8186)
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
The intention was for this option to only be set in the production requirements file, but due to how pip-compile-multi works, it ends up leaking into all other files too. Moving it to the Dockerfile fixes this.
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…ts (#8369) IMO, these checks are not very useful. The permission logic for requests already checks that the request is being canceled by the same user that created it. Therefore, these additional checks can only fail if a user creates a request for some action, loses the permissions to do the same action again, and then tries to cancel the request. But cancelling a request does not do anything to the target resource (in fact, it _prevents_ some future actions from taking place), so I really don't see why this shouldn't be allowed. In addition, these checks create some problems: * If the creator of the request is no longer able to cancel it, we now have a request that _nobody_ is allowed to cancel. That seems wrong. * To implement these checks, `RequestPermission` has to know which actions require which permissions. This creates code duplication between it and the other permission classes. It also causes a dependency on those classes, which could create problems if we want to use the request API for actions from the Enterprise version.
…sets`|`backups` (#8255) - Fixed exporting the same dataset or backup twice in a row using high-level SDK (switched to new export API version) (related #8256) - Fixed exporting a dataset or backup using high-level SDK when the default project or task location refers to cloud storage - Added ability to explicitly specify location when exporting datasets and backups using high-level SDK ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Introduced mixins for exporting datasets and downloading backups, enhancing functionality across multiple classes. - Added a new fixture for testing tasks with specified target storage, improving test coverage. - **Bug Fixes** - Improved error handling in the file download process to ensure validity before proceeding. - **Refactor** - Restructured the downloading mechanism for better modularity and maintainability. - Removed outdated methods in favor of mixin functionality, streamlining class design. - **Tests** - Enhanced the test suite with additional scenarios and flexibility for task management and dataset downloading. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> --------- Co-authored-by: Maxim Zhiltsov <zhiltsov.max35@gmail.com>
v3 is due to stop working on 2024-11-30: <https://github.blog/changelog/2024-04-16-deprecation-notice-v3-of-the-artifact-actions/>. Note that `artifact-upload@v4` no longer allows multiple jobs of the same workflow to upload an artifact with the same name, thus I had to rename several of the artifacts. In the case of coverage results, re-merge them at the end to avoid clutter on the workflow summary page. I didn't bother with merging other artifacts, because they're only produced in case of failure, so I'm not expecting them to create much clutter. Delete the schema upload step entirely, because I don't think it works (it's inside the wrong job), and it doesn't seem that useful anyway.
GitHub Actions artifact storage is free for public repositories, so there seems to be no reason to remove artifacts after builds.
<!-- Raise an issue to propose your change (https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/issues). It helps to avoid duplication of efforts from multiple independent contributors. Discuss your ideas with maintainers to be sure that changes will be approved and merged. Read the [Contribution guide](https://docs.cvat.ai/docs/contributing/). --> <!-- Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above --> ### Motivation and context By using tuple as a container for points when dealing with import from datumaro, we can achieve 2 things: - Reduce memory needed for copying shapes and tracks during import (running `deepcopy` on `tuple[int]` will return the same object, as opposed to `list[int]`) - Guarantee type safety during later stages of data pipeline and skip additional conversion added in #1898 Same thing arguable should be done for CVAT format as well. Benchmarks: [memray_reports.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16849509/memray_reports.zip) ### How has this been tested? <!-- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran to see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. --> ### Checklist <!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. If an item isn't applicable for some reason, then ~~explicitly strikethrough~~ the whole line. If you don't do that, GitHub will show incorrect progress for the pull request. If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> - [x] I submit my changes into the `develop` branch - [ ] I have created a changelog fragment <!-- see top comment in CHANGELOG.md --> - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly - [ ] I have added tests to cover my changes - [ ] I have linked related issues (see [GitHub docs]( https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword)) - [ ] I have increased versions of npm packages if it is necessary ([cvat-canvas](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-canvas#versioning), [cvat-core](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-core#versioning), [cvat-data](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-data#versioning) and [cvat-ui](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-ui#versioning)) ### License - [x] I submit _my code changes_ under the same [MIT License]( https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/blob/develop/LICENSE) that covers the project. Feel free to contact the maintainers if that's a concern. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Improved handling of shape points during the import process for enhanced data accuracy. - Centralized conversion of shape points to floats, optimizing memory usage and performance. - **Refactor** - Enhanced code readability and maintainability by restructuring the point conversion logic. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
This will let us collect statistics about function usage. Note that I would've preferred the function ID to go into the `obj_id` field, but function IDs are strings, and the field is numeric.
<!-- Raise an issue to propose your change (https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/issues). It helps to avoid duplication of efforts from multiple independent contributors. Discuss your ideas with maintainers to be sure that changes will be approved and merged. Read the [Contribution guide](https://docs.cvat.ai/docs/contributing/). --> <!-- Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above --> ### Motivation and context <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. Describe your changes in detail, add screenshots. --> fixing #7783 also fixing related problem - some jobs from the issue can not be opened in ui due to missing shapes ### How has this been tested? <!-- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran to see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. --> ### Checklist <!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. If an item isn't applicable for some reason, then ~~explicitly strikethrough~~ the whole line. If you don't do that, GitHub will show incorrect progress for the pull request. If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> - [ ] I submit my changes into the `develop` branch - [ ] I have created a changelog fragment <!-- see top comment in CHANGELOG.md --> - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly - [ ] I have added tests to cover my changes - [ ] I have linked related issues (see [GitHub docs]( https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword)) - [ ] I have increased versions of npm packages if it is necessary ([cvat-canvas](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-canvas#versioning), [cvat-core](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-core#versioning), [cvat-data](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-data#versioning) and [cvat-ui](https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/tree/develop/cvat-ui#versioning)) ### License - [ ] I submit _my code changes_ under the same [MIT License]( https://github.com/cvat-ai/cvat/blob/develop/LICENSE) that covers the project. Feel free to contact the maintainers if that's a concern. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Enhanced data integrity in annotation processing by adding filtering steps before sorting. - New entries for "many jobs skeleton tracks with missing shapes" and "many jobs skeleton" added to the dataset, improving job tracking capabilities and complex job definitions. - Introduced a new static method for annotation creation, improving code modularity and reusability. - **Bug Fixes** - Improved error handling in annotation functions to prevent runtime errors when accessing potentially undefined variables. - **Tests** - Expanded the testing framework with new tests for annotation creation scenarios, ensuring comprehensive coverage. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
This has several goals: * Remove `LambdaType.UNKNOWN`. Functions with this non-type are useless and should not be presented to the user. * Don't return 404 from the list endpoint if one function cannot be loaded. This prevents one bad function from essentially disabling the entire serverless function feature. Instead, log the error and ignore the function. * Don't return 404 from other endpoints either when the problem is a bad function. This is not a client problem. Raise an exception and let Django log it and return a 500. * Remove HTTP codes from `LambdaFunction`, to improve separation of concerns.
This is consistent with other user-controllable objects, and when you're triggering the API manually, makes it easier to determine which ID to use.
This enum is used for a field named `kind` in a resource located at `/api/lambda/function`, so it seems pretty clear that it should be named `FunctionKind`. (Or perhaps `LambdaFunctionKind`, but I omitted the "lambda" for consistency with views and serializers.) In addition to renaming, move it to `models`, so that it can be used by serializers. No such serializers currently exist, but I'd like to add them later. Turn it into a Django choice enum as well, so that `__str__` works out of the box.
Due to how `WebhookPermission.get_scopes` is written, any unhandled endpoint will result in an empty list being returned, and thus no access control being performed. This is the right thing for `/api/webhooks/events`, but not so much for every other endpoint.
cvat-bot
bot
requested review from
azhavoro,
zhiltsov-max and
bsekachev
as code owners
cvat-bot
bot
requested review from
SpecLad,
Marishka17 and
nmanovic
as code owners
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the You can disable this status message by setting the TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8422 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.35% 83.62% +0.26%
==========================================
Files 390 397 +7
Lines 41501 41906 +405
Branches 3839 3883 +44
==========================================
+ Hits 34593 35043 +450
+ Misses 6908 6863 -45
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Added
New quality settings
Target metric,Target metric threshold,Max validations per job(SupportTarget metricin quality UI #8347)Ability to specify location when exporting datasets and backups using SDK (Update high-level SDK used for exporting
project|task|jobdatasets|backups#8255)Shortcuts in user interface now may be customized depends on a user requirements ([GSoC'24] Dependent on #8007, UI, Working Conflict Detector and Shortcuts adjusted according to different Scopes, with the addition of Local Storage #8186)
Added analytics events for function calls (Log events for function calls #8395)
Changed
Mean annotaion qualitycard on quality page now displays a value depending onTarget metricsetting (SupportTarget metricin quality UI #8347)When cancelling a request, a user is no longer required to have permissions to perform the original action (Don't check permissions for the target resource when canceling requests #8369)
Lambda function endpoints now return 500 instead of 404 if a function's metadata is invalid (lambda_manager: revamp function parsing error handling #8406)
An unknown lambda function type is now treated as invalid metadata and the function is no longer included in the list endpoint output (lambda_manager: revamp function parsing error handling #8406)
Removed
Fixed
An issue that occurred when exporting the same dataset or backup twice in a row using SDK (Update high-level SDK used for exporting
project|task|jobdatasets|backups#8255)An issue that occurred when exporting a dataset or backup using SDK when the default project or task location refers to cloud storage (Update high-level SDK used for exporting
project|task|jobdatasets|backups#8255)Export crashed on skeleton track with missing shapes (fixing problems with skeleton tracks with missing points #8377)
One lambda function with invalid metadata will no longer break function listing (lambda_manager: revamp function parsing error handling #8406)
Security