Skip to content

BUG: JS Client - Make embedding function parameter optional #4305

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ArmanDris
Copy link

@ArmanDris ArmanDris commented Apr 17, 2025

Description of changes

Referenced in issue: #3730

In the JS Client the embeddingFunction parameter for getCollection is optional, but in the type definition the ? is missing making the type checker think it is a mandatory parameter.

The docustring for getCollection, indicating that embeddingFunction is optional is here:

* @param {IEmbeddingFunction} [params.embeddingFunction] - Optional custom embedding function for the collection.

Summarize the changes made by this PR.

  • I changed embeddingFunction: IEmbeddingFunction; to embeddingFunction?: IEmbeddingFunction;

Test plan

How are these changes tested?

  • No type errors when calling getCollection with just a name field
  • The correct collection is returned when getCollection is called without an embeddingFunction

Documentation Changes

These changes make the code allign with the getCollection docustring, so no changes required.

Copy link

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

  • Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
  • Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
  • Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
  • Are error messages user-friendly?
  • Have all documentation changes needed been made?
  • Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

  • Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
  • Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

  • Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant