Fix request model validation

[schustmi]

Describe changes

This PR contains two changes:

• Our make_dependable function that allows us to use filter models attributes as query parameters in FastAPI endpoints had a bug where it would throw a 500 HTTP error instead of the intended 422, because there were some objects that are not JSON serializable in the ValidationError.errors() list that we passed on to the HTTPError. This PR fixes that by instead using our helper function to compute the error detail.
• When an invalid UUID was being passed for a equals:<ID> filter, we threw a ValueError. This did not match the behaviour when using e.g. a oneof:[<ID>] filter and leads to additional complexity in the frontend, which is why we removed this error. The filter with an invalid ID will now simply return an empty list.

Pre-requisites

Please ensure you have done the following:

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
• If my change requires a change to docs, I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have based my new branch on develop and the open PR is targeting develop. If your branch wasn't based on develop read Contribution guide on rebasing branch to develop.
• If my changes require changes to the dashboard, these changes are communicated/requested.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Other (add details above)

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[bcdurak]

When an invalid UUID was being passed for a equals: filter, we threw a ValueError. This did not match the behaviour when using e.g. a oneof:[] filter and leads to additional complexity in the frontend, which is why we removed this error. The filter with an invalid ID will now simply return an empty list.

I would propose approaching this the other way around. If we throw an error when people use an invalid UUID on a field which is clearly UUID, it is much more helpful to the user (and to the frontend) IMO. So, instead of removing the check from equals:, I would propose adding it to oneof: as well and keep things consistent.

[schustmi]

When an invalid UUID was being passed for a equals: filter, we threw a ValueError. This did not match the behaviour when using e.g. a oneof:[] filter and leads to additional complexity in the frontend, which is why we removed this error. The filter with an invalid ID will now simply return an empty list.

I would propose approaching this the other way around. If we throw an error when people use an invalid UUID on a field which is clearly UUID, it is much more helpful to the user (and to the frontend) IMO. So, instead of removing the check from equals:, I would propose adding it to oneof: as well and keep things consistent.

I could make the same argument for date filters before the year 2020 though, as ZenML didn't exist yet and therefore no pipeline run can be created before that. Or any name that contains invalid characters. Or a negative integer for a version number.

Especially for the filter implementation in the frontend, it's very weird if the user switches the operator from contains to equals and suddenly gets an error message coming from the backend I feel. I don't really see the need to have this inconsistency just for a single operator and type, maybe @Cahllagerfeld also some opinion here

[bcdurak]

When an invalid UUID was being passed for a equals: filter, we threw a ValueError. This did not match the behaviour when using e.g. a oneof:[] filter and leads to additional complexity in the frontend, which is why we removed this error. The filter with an invalid ID will now simply return an empty list.

I would propose approaching this the other way around. If we throw an error when people use an invalid UUID on a field which is clearly UUID, it is much more helpful to the user (and to the frontend) IMO. So, instead of removing the check from equals:, I would propose adding it to oneof: as well and keep things consistent.

I could make the same argument for date filters before the year 2020 though, as ZenML didn't exist yet and therefore no pipeline run can be created before that. Or any name that contains invalid characters. Or a negative integer for a version number.

Especially for the filter implementation in the frontend, it's very weird if the user switches the operator from contains to equals and suddenly gets an error message coming from the backend I feel. I don't really see the need to have this inconsistency just for a single operator and type, maybe @Cahllagerfeld also some opinion here

I see your point. However, I have to say, throwing an error if someone enters a name with an invalid character made sense to me intuitively. 😄 I guess, the main use case I was trying to avoid was this: Back in the day (not sure if this is still the case), some of our UUID filters would work with the XXXX-XXXX-XXXXX-XXX format whereas some of them would work with the XXXXXXXXXXX format. In cases like this, if I get empty results back, as a user, it would not be clear to me if I entered something wrong or if the results were just empty. That's why checking the format (without checking the content like the name or the date) seemed like a good idea.

I agree with you completely regarding the switch though from the frontend perspective. Maybe @stefannica and @AlexejPenner can chime in here as well. Regardless, I don't think this is a critical issue. I will approve for now, feel free to merge as you see fit.

[AlexejPenner]

🦭

I like the idea of throwing errors for dates before 2020 - maybe a 1985: Time travel not yet invented Error ?