Skip to content
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

Feature idea: track artifacts (co-)dependencies #260

Open
tibor-mach opened this issue Sep 8, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Feature idea: track artifacts (co-)dependencies #260

tibor-mach opened this issue Sep 8, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
discussion Discussion is needed to reach conclusion product Product work is needed studio Potential feature for Studio

Comments

@tibor-mach
Copy link

I think it might be quite useful to track dependencies in such a way that e.g. if I want to deploy a new version of artifact foo to prod and foo depends on artifacts bar and baz then GTO will warn me if bar and baz are not yet in prod.

Reasoning:

In a scenario with coupled data and model versions (see here for my reasons for why that might be a good idea) it would be nice to be able to link them together explicitly.

I can look at the dvc pipeline of my foo model in the foo_training repository and see that it depends on foo_data, rev:v0.1.0. I can even add this info to the annotation of foo_model in GTO in the model registry (so that I don't have to keep going back to the model to check). But with this workflow, I would like to make sure I cannot deploy a model to production if it depends on a dataset which is not yet in production (i.e. if it is produced by a data pipeline which does not run in production and consequently, the integration of the model service and data preparation service will fail).

So a cool feature would be if GTO gives me a warning (or prevents me unless I use something like gto assign --force) when I am assigning prod (or any specified reserved stage name) to the model, unless its dataset dependency is also in prod.

@aguschin aguschin added product Product work is needed discussion Discussion is needed to reach conclusion labels Sep 23, 2022
@aguschin
Copy link
Contributor

Potential feature for Studio, I think.

@aguschin aguschin added the studio Potential feature for Studio label Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Discussion is needed to reach conclusion product Product work is needed studio Potential feature for Studio
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants