This repository was archived by the owner on May 13, 2026. It is now read-only.
Update Process Model Search to Allow Relative Imports - #903
Open
kds300 wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
Conversation
… relative imports Signed-off-by: kevin <kds300@psu.edu>
Signed-off-by: kevin <kds300@psu.edu>
… skipped Signed-off-by: kevin <kds300@psu.edu>
Signed-off-by: kevin <kds300@psu.edu>
Signed-off-by: kevin <kds300@psu.edu>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue Number: #902
Objective of pull request: Modify process model search process to allow for relative imports when defining custom processes and process models.
Pull request checklist
Your PR fulfills the following requirements:
flakeheaven lint src/lava tests/) and (bandit -r src/lava/.) pass locallypytest) passes locallyPull request type
Please check your PR type:
What is the current behavior?
What is the new behavior?
Does this introduce a breaking change?