-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
New issue
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
[ATO-1315] Flows yaml schema #12901
[ATO-1315] Flows yaml schema #12901
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great 💯 I'd advise to open a companion PR in financial llm demo bot pinning rasa to this branch to test your PR 🙏🏻
@ancalita The validation itself seems to fail on financial llm demo bot... (the flows got loaded. Still not sure if the flow name is a required field for a flow) The training works if I do skip validation (this does not skip checking the schema): |
I think that's because |
Added name as required and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks good to me. Good job on the json schema!
One remaining question regarding flow names being required... In my recent PR I added a default for the name
attribute of flow that basically converts the id and removes the underscores from it to form a name if none is present. In the names you added this is exactly the same pattern. I find it quite redundant to always duplicate the id in the name. I think we can go with the name = id (with underscores replaced) default and then people can adjust the name if they still want to.
8ef2870
to
47c596c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome 🙌🏻 I left a few questions, I'd add some more tests to check for each step type and potential values given to each step's different properties (valid and invalid values). Also I'd add another test for testing whether random keys can be added to a flow or flow steps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 💯 Approving to unblock you, but on condition that the passing e2e tests for demo bot are all good 😄 I also left 2 questions for clarification.
}, | ||
{ | ||
"required": [ | ||
"intent" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just double-checking if this is still in use yet, or if it's been discarded, i thought we removed the need for steps of type user message, unless this is something different and related to coexistence?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added because of the flow spec specifically 3. Flow Rules
3rd point it's not used anywhere (that I found) same with nlu_trigger
maybe they are used for same thing...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, yeah I was also under the impression that we don't use the intent
step any longer, but nlu_trigger
might be useful in coexistence. Best to check with Daksh/Engine on Slack if this part of the schema is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes we use nlu_trigger
now. Although that property hasn't been implemented yet. @twerkmeister would know the implementation details of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the clarification @dakshvar22 removed the intent
step from the schema, the nlu_trigger
is already part of the schema here (structure is the same as in the flows spec)
@twerkmeister @ancalita running the e2e tests on the demo bot (with the default flow change and without the change) is 50pass 18fail always is that the expected ratio or do all tests pass?
|
🚀 A preview of the docs have been deployed at the following URL: https://12901--rasahq-docs-rasa-v2.netlify.app/docs/rasa |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 5 Bugs 0.0% Coverage The version of Java (11.0.20) you have used to run this analysis is deprecated and we will stop accepting it soon. Please update to at least Java 17. |
Hey @Urkem Apologies, I missed this message on Friday, if the same tests fail without the schema change, I'd advise to open a ticket with the details about failing tests and alert Dan about it, should be investigated what change caused those tests to fail since the tests labelled as |
Proposed changes:
Status (please check what you already did):
black
(please check Readme for instructions)