[ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration - Tasks by satvshr · Pull Request #1611 · openml/openml-python

satvshr · 2026-01-09T09:06:07Z

Metadata

Reference Issue: stacks on [ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration - core structure #1576, fixes [ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration - tasks #1621
New Tests Added: No
Documentation Updated: No

codecov-commenter · 2026-01-09T09:13:33Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.71598% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 79.37%. Comparing base (f4fd28e) to head (38bddf1).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
openml/_api/resources/task.py	90.83%	12 Missing ⚠️
openml/tasks/task.py	91.30%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1611       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   51.66%   79.37%   +27.70%     
===========================================
  Files          63       63               
  Lines        5551     5565       +14     
===========================================
+ Hits         2868     4417     +1549     
+ Misses       2683     1148     -1535

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

geetu040

From a high-level review, I noticed a few points that need adjustment:

Caching can likely be removed from the SDK, since these concerns should be handled by the base client.
I don't see the api_context being used in tasks/functions, so it's not clear to me how the SDK is actually using the new API interface here.
Instead of moving entire methods out of tasks/functions.py, it would be better to stick to the goal of minimal SDK changes while enabling v2 support.
API calls should be updated at the specific root functions (for example _get_task_description, OpenMLTask._download_split).
For listing tasks, please follow the approach discussed in #1575 comment.

geetu040

I have left some comments, please take a look and make sure the signature of all methods in TasksAPI, TasksV1 and TasksV2 stay same.

satvshr · 2026-01-16T19:27:34Z

@geetu040 I will explain the confusion I am facing to the best of my abilities, and I do feel communicating on the PR threads is yielding no results, hence I will just put everything here:

Over here you say the base class should have v1 functions like list, delete, and create. This means to me that all V1 related functions should be moved from functions.py to TasksV1 (from SDK to resources) and calls inside functions.py should be replaced with calls to api_context.backend.task.method. Over here, you say something similar, stating that TasksV1, V2, and TasksAPI should have the same function signatures.
Over here and here you mention that we should try to keep most of the code in SDK and not resources (contradictory to point 1).
Completely contrary to point 1 you mention get_tasks along with create_task and delete_task should stay in sdk over here.

I seem to be getting 2 contradictory messages from your end which is where the confusion arises.

geetu040 · 2026-01-19T07:18:57Z

I seem to be getting 2 contradictory messages from your end which is where the confusion arises.

I don't feel confused with the picture I have in my mind, I think I need to explain it even better. I'll try to document each method in detail what should be moved and what should stay.

satvshr · 2026-01-19T11:51:20Z

Kindly resolve the comments which have been solved, it would be easier to navigate!

geetu040 · 2026-01-19T16:44:51Z

Kindly resolve the comments which have been solved, it would be easier to navigate!

It doesn't look like I have the typical "Resolve" button.

Edit: It's visible in the "Files changed" section, I'll resolve them there.

geetu040

Really nice, the code is in a better shape now. Many lines have been removed in the functions.py which seem fine but I'll take a deeper look. In other comments mostly some cleaning is required.

geetu040 · 2026-01-20T08:09:06Z

we have an api call in _download_split, what do you think about that? also does it relate with the datasets PR?

we have an api call in _download_split, what do you think about that?

I remember you and Shrivaths discussing cache paths for V1 and V2 and I think the understanding was that the paths would differ, if that is the case, we should change this later on and leave it as it is right now.

also does it relate with the datasets PR?

Only the get_dataset part, hence the Shrivaths comment

geetu040 · 2026-01-20T08:11:12Z

this looks really good and clean now, just one open thread which needs discussion now: #1611 (comment)

If you agreed with my approach, can we not close that too?

geetu040

sdk code look good so far, please take a look at #1575 (comment) and make changes accordingly where needed.
all tests (existing and new) should pass to make sure we are retaining the original functionality of the sdk

geetu040 · 2026-01-30T07:24:45Z

+        task_type: TaskType | int | None = None,
+        **kwargs: Any,
+    ) -> pd.DataFrame:
+        raise NotImplementedError("Task listing is not available in API v2 yet.")


see point 8 in #1575 (comment)

geetu040 · 2026-01-30T07:25:49Z

    return tasks


-@openml.utils.thread_safe_if_oslo_installed


see point 3 in #1575 (comment)

geetu040 · 2026-01-30T07:25:54Z



-class OpenMLTask(OpenMLBase):
+class OpenMLTask(OpenMLBase, ResourceAPI):


should not inherit ResourceAPI

geetu040 · 2026-01-30T07:25:56Z

-                source=str(split_url),
-                output_path=str(cache_file),
-            )
+            self._http.download(url=str(split_url), file_name="datasplits.arff")


use api_context.backend.task.[something] here

How am I supposed to do that? download is a method in the HTTPClient.

Still this should be under a method now called openml._backend.task.[something] and then we can take this problem to TaskV1.[something].

I see this function depends on download of HTTPClient, I'll either add that method in the core PR or we can plan to merge datasets PR before this.

Will be moving this to TaskAPI after discussion.

geetu040 · 2026-01-30T07:26:20Z

-        raise NotImplementedError(
-            f"Task type ID {task_type:d} is not supported. "
-            f"Supported task type IDs: {TaskType.SUPERVISED_CLASSIFICATION.value},"
-            f"{TaskType.SUPERVISED_REGRESSION.value}, "
-            f"{TaskType.CLUSTERING.value}, {TaskType.LEARNING_CURVE.value}. "
-            f"Please refer to the TaskType enum for valid task type identifiers."
-        )
+        raise NotImplementedError(f"Task type {task_type:d} not supported.")


let's keep it as it was

EmanAbdelhaleem · 2026-02-04T17:25:26Z

+
+        return pd.DataFrame.from_dict(tasks, orient="index")
+
+    def _get_estimation_procedure_list(self) -> builtins.list[dict[str, Any]]:


@geetu040 We already have implemented this function in the estimation_procedure resource, so I think we don't need it to be here, right?

Just checked, once we merge your PR we can replace it with the _get_details function yes.

yes, that's the plan

EmanAbdelhaleem · 2026-02-04T17:28:52Z

+        task_type: TaskType | int | None = None,
+        **kwargs: Any,
+    ) -> pd.DataFrame:
+        raise NotImplementedError(self._not_supported(method="list"))


You can just use self._not_supported(method="list")

no need for raise NotImplementedError()

EmanAbdelhaleem · 2026-02-04T17:35:10Z

+        assert isinstance(procs, list)
+        assert len(procs) > 0
+        assert "id" in procs[0]
+


I think you need to add TestTasksV2 class, and also add v1 and v2 matching tests and fallback tests as mentioned here: #1575 (comment)

I dont need to add TestTasksV2 given those tests are a subset of TestTasksV1. Matching tests are in the shared class.

you still need TestTasksV2 and check if they raise the not implemented error
i think you should use this design then, since there are many common utilities
tests/test_api/test_versions.py

EmanAbdelhaleem · 2026-02-04T17:42:54Z

+        task_type: TaskType | int | None = None,
+        **kwargs: Any,
+    ) -> pd.DataFrame:
+        """


@geetu040
Should we all use the same style or not?
for me, I have splitted this this into 3 functions for more readability and less coupling

list()

_build_url()

_parse_list_xml()

I don't think we need private functions to match each other in terms of nomenclature or functionality as long as we share the same common function names (which we do).

same nomenclature is preferred
I would say you should do this, will make it better anyways

Will do, but I don't necessarily agree. Something similar happened in another project where we were working on 2 algorithms and I suggested something similar but Franz mentioned it is not something that can consistently be maintained across the entire codebase hence does not need change. Given we have 8-9 resources it does not feel fruitful to have people share the same nomenclature for private functions across all PRs, I don't have a strong opinion on this though and I will be making the requested change.

yeah if your function is lengthy then it's always better to break it into components, otherwise agreed this is not necessary

Oh yeah I agree if the function is lengthy, over here (eman's suggestion) we are just removing 15 lines of code and replacing with 1, hence the hesitance. Anyways, I did change it so the pr is ready for review again :D

geetu040

rename tasks to task, in TestTasksV1, `test_tasks.py just for consistency
and other comments from @EmanAbdelhaleem's review

geetu040

@satvshr what's the status of this PR? It has been stale for quite a while now. Are you still working on it, planning to continue it, or waiting for a review?

satvshr · 2026-05-01T08:04:18Z

@geetu040 you had pushed some commits so I was awaiting instructions on how to proceed next, unless you were picking it up, was my thought.

geetu040 · 2026-05-01T08:41:21Z

@geetu040 you had pushed some commits so I was awaiting instructions on how to proceed next, unless you were picking it up, was my thought.

I think we discussed but I've made the changes in both datasets and this pr. You can continue if you are willing to work on it. That would require first to fix the tests in the CI by updating tests suits with the moved cache files.

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

geetu040

@satvshr Thanks for the PR and continuing so far. I have made some changes to fix the CI, sycned with main and datasets PR and some left-over comments.

@PGijsbers this is ready for review/merge.

The failing tests in the CI are coming from minio production server which we've discussed in thread and also appear in main tested locally.

geetu040 mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026

[ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration #1575

Open

15 of 18 tasks

satvshr marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2026 15:29

geetu040 suggested changes Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread examples/Advanced/fetch_evaluations_tutorial.py Resolved

satvshr marked this pull request as draft January 14, 2026 20:25

satvshr changed the title ~~[ENH] Tasks Migration~~ [ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration - Tasks Jan 15, 2026

geetu040 suggested changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

geetu040 assigned satvshr Jan 19, 2026

geetu040 suggested changes Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

geetu040 suggested changes Jan 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

satvshr marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2026 15:57

EmanAbdelhaleem reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

satvshr marked this pull request as draft February 4, 2026 17:37

update/refactor tests

d2224c4

EmanAbdelhaleem reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

satvshr and others added 8 commits February 4, 2026 23:46

bug fixing and cached tests removal

f89230a

updated tests

0708966

updated tests

122bd21

Merge remote-tracking branch 'geetu040/migration' into tasks

d6565f1

latest core changes

f7aa11e

remove unused current_api_version from TestAPIBase

9608c36

make TestAPIBase inherit TestBase

f6bc7f7

nits: test classes

baa3a38

geetu040 suggested changes Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

geetu040 added 5 commits March 27, 2026 14:22

remove headers.json, meta.json

b3b3b2a

rename: body.bin -> body.xml

79985a5

move tests/files

61a57e7

move files in api_splits

369ae20

update conftest.py

cdb4d3a

geetu040 reviewed May 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

satvshr and others added 21 commits May 10, 2026 17:50

tests fixing

aaa4bed

tests fixing

f9d7e7e

tests fixing

c1322cc

Merge branch 'main' into tasks

34167dc

test fix

e4cad1b

test fix

3da9ede

Merge branch 'main' into tasks

c45de4f

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

54f7ede

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

merge origin/main into tasks

6fbe5d4

ignore split pickles at new fixture paths

97b9a2f

route download_split through task backend

534ac2d

remove supports_download_splits, V2 serves split urls

81e5711

fix V2 task parser parity with V1

ec6b890

move task helpers into static methods

cbf6854

fix task list error strings and get docstring

75fe09a

remove task tests for the old cache directory

8b04b5a

update task tests for new cache paths

4ae2c9c

expand task API tests for download_split and V2 parity

04c96a8

remove unused TASKS_CACHE_DIR_NAME

5821253

pass estimation procedures from list_tasks to task backend

6377855

merge origin/main into tasks

38bddf1

geetu040 approved these changes Nov 7, 2026

View reviewed changes



		class OpenMLTask(OpenMLBase):
		class OpenMLTask(OpenMLBase, ResourceAPI):


		return pd.DataFrame.from_dict(tasks, orient="index")

		def _get_estimation_procedure_list(self) -> builtins.list[dict[str, Any]]:

Conversation

satvshr commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Metadata

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

geetu040 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geetu040 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

satvshr commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geetu040 commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

satvshr commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

geetu040 commented Jan 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geetu040 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

satvshr Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

satvshr Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geetu040 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EmanAbdelhaleem Feb 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

satvshr commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

satvshr commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

geetu040 commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

satvshr Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

satvshr Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

EmanAbdelhaleem Feb 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

satvshr Feb 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

satvshr Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading