Skip to content

Question for community: We're considering adding pydantic as a base requirement to 🤗 transformers #36329

Closed
@gante

Description

@gante

Hi everyone! 👋

We want to expand our argument validation in transformers to improve the library's overall UX. No one wants to store a config object on the Hub with impossible parameterization or go through the code to find the admissible range for a certain input argument.

To that end, we're considering adding pydantic>=2.0 as a base requirement to 🤗 transformers.

Adding a base requirement is not a decision we want to make lightly -- it may place unwanted constraints on downstream projects. We can't anticipate all issues, so we're raising this issue to proactively find them. If >2.0 is a general issue, we can do a try/except block with import pydantic.v1 as pydantic, and use 1.x syntax.

Let us know your opinion about pydantic!

(Related PR: #35910)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

      pFad - Phonifier reborn

      Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

      Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


      Alternative Proxies:

      Alternative Proxy

      pFad Proxy

      pFad v3 Proxy

      pFad v4 Proxy