[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 16.35220% with 133 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 27.63%. Comparing base (fabbc28) to head (54f7ede).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
openml/_api/resources/task.py	12.69%	110 Missing ⚠️
openml/tasks/task.py	18.75%	13 Missing ⚠️
openml/tasks/functions.py	9.09%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1611 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 81.50% 27.63% -53.88% 
===========================================
Files 63 63 Lines 5240 5262 +22 ===========================================
- Hits 4271 1454 -2817 - Misses 969 3808 +2839

☔ 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

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

source: openml#1606 (comment)

- removing this since it was not part of the sdk previously - some tests fail because of the timeout in stacked PRs - this option can easily be added if needed in future

… tasks

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()

geetu040

delete the old files in tests/files so git identifies and marks them as renamed files which would make it easier to track

a lot of irrelevant files are touched in tests, probably from your other pr's pre-commit, please revert them

see the comments on _get_estimation_procedure_list
don't remove this function, keep it as it is, it's updated here #1604 (changes)
call it separately in list_tasks and pass onwards to openml._backend.task.list as a parameter
it should stay out of _api/
keep test__get_estimation_procedure_list

remove TaskV1API and TaskV2API import in openml/tasks/functions.py

geetu040 · 2026-03-25T15:28:24Z

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


this should stay out of _api/

geetu040 · 2026-03-25T15:28:29Z

- raise OpenMLCacheException(f"Task file for tid {tid} not cached") from e
-
-
-def _get_estimation_procedure_list() -> list[dict[str, Any]]:


don't remove this function, keep it as it is, it's updated here #1604 (changes)
call it separately in list_tasks and pass onwards to openml._backend.task.list as a parameter

We will then have to alter the signature of openml._backend.task.list to accept _get_estimation_procedure_list as a permanent argument, which doesnt make sense?

I think that would make sense, why not?

The function is being called in multiple places so I assume it is something that will be used a lot, won't this change just prevent positional arguments in the future?

discussion moved over to discord

geetu040 · 2026-03-25T15:28:58Z

would fail if you delete the old files in tests/files, you can keep it like the suggestion in #1619 (review)

geetu040

I've updated #1619 (review). Please sync with main and update cache files accordingly.

geetu040 · 2026-03-26T12:09:04Z

There is cache and api-calls which are needed to be updated in this file. I think you'd only need to update OpenMLTask.download_split. You should use _http.download here. Let me know if you need help.

as discussed on discord, no need to use _http.download, instead use _http.get where applicable.

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 mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026
[ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration #1575
Open
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 threadexamples/Advanced/fetch_evaluations_tutorial.py

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

satvshr changed the title ~~[ENH] Tasks Migration~~[ENH] V1 → V2 API Migration - TasksJan 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

geetu040and others added 13 commits February 3, 2026 18:43

fix linting for builder
cabaecf

merge migration
0be93cf

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
8e5c4eb
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

adjusting to new changes
021c1ed

adjusting to new changes
5e6c56e

adjusting to new changes
1fec002

adjusting to new changes
1877c07

fix unbound variables: "code", "message"
85c1113
source: openml#1606 (comment)

use requests.Session()
39bf86a

remove "timeout_seconds" entirely
7b66677
- removing this since it was not part of the sdk previously - some tests fail because of the timeout in stacked PRs - this option can easily be added if needed in future

adjusting to new changes
b61741f

Merge branch 'tasks' ofhttps://github.com/satvshr/openml-pythoninto…
2a51495
… tasks

Updated tests
2bf1d1e

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

EmanAbdelhaleem reviewed Feb 4, 2026
View reviewed changes

satvshr added 3 commits March 24, 2026 17:39

bug fixing
d4b033e

bug fixing
cebf764

Trigger Build
ca8b72d

geetu040 suggested changes Mar 25, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadopenml/tasks/task.py Outdated
Comment threadopenml/tasks/task.py Outdated

satvshr added 2 commits March 26, 2026 13:36

first round of changes
844faf5

first round of changes
9a752eb

geetu040 suggested changes Mar 26, 2026
View reviewed changes

satvshrand others added 10 commits March 26, 2026 23:20

requested changes
f276b28

merge main
edde570

_get_estimation_procedure_list work
a416fbd

accidentally removed
b1e91fe

update HTTPClient
7c7d400

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

satvshrand others added 8 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



		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]]:

		raise OpenMLCacheException(f"Task file for tid {tid} not cached") from e


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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

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!

satvshrJan 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!

satvshrJan 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!

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

satvshrJan 21, 2026•
edited
Loading

satvshrJan 21, 2026•
edited
Loading

EmanAbdelhaleemFeb 4, 2026•
edited
Loading