search

Klipper3d / klipper

Klipper is a 3d-printer firmware
GNU General Public License v3.0
8.94k stars 5.15k forks source link

webhooks default JSON dump type #6578

Open ZeyHex opened 1 month ago

ZeyHex commented 1 month ago

In some cases, if module developers use NumPy or SciPy, it happens that json dumps end up with data of type bool_ or others that it does not understand. This fix prevents errors from occurring on the Klipper side, but retains the ability for developers to process their data that they receive via webhooks

JamesH1978 commented 1 month ago

Thank you for submitting a PR, pleas refer to point 3 in "What to expect in a review" in https://github.com/Klipper3d/klipper/blob/master/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md and provide a signed off by line.

Thanks James

ZeyHex commented 1 month ago

I didn't really understand what was required of me. I don't expect anything from PR, it's just a bug fix.

flowerysong commented 1 month ago

All commit messages must have a sign-off indicating that you have reviewed the DCO (https://github.com/Klipper3d/klipper/blob/master/docs/developer-certificate-of-origin) and this commit is covered by one of its clauses.

The process for doing this varies, but if you have a local topic branch for this change: on your local branch, do git commit --amend -s to add the Signed-off-by line, then git push -f to update the branch in your fork.

ZeyHex commented 1 month ago

Thanks for the tip! Done.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 weeks ago

Thank you for your contribution to Klipper. Unfortunately, a reviewer has not assigned themselves to this GitHub Pull Request. All Pull Requests are reviewed before merging, and a reviewer will need to volunteer. Further information is available at: https://www.klipper3d.org/CONTRIBUTING.html

There are some steps that you can take now:

  1. Perform a self-review of your Pull Request by following the steps at: https://www.klipper3d.org/CONTRIBUTING.html#what-to-expect-in-a-review If you have completed a self-review, be sure to state the results of that self-review explicitly in the Pull Request comments. A reviewer is more likely to participate if the bulk of a review has already been completed.
  2. Consider opening a topic on the Klipper Discourse server to discuss this work. The Discourse server is a good place to discuss development ideas and to engage users interested in testing. Reviewers are more likely to prioritize Pull Requests with an active community of users.
  3. Consider helping out reviewers by reviewing other Klipper Pull Requests. Taking the time to perform a careful and detailed review of others work is appreciated. Regular contributors are more likely to prioritize the contributions of other regular contributors.

Unfortunately, if a reviewer does not assign themselves to this GitHub Pull Request then it will be automatically closed. If this happens, then it is a good idea to move further discussion to the Klipper Discourse server. Reviewers can reach out on that forum to let you know if they are interested and when they are available.

Best regards, ~ Your friendly GitIssueBot

PS: I'm just an automated script, not a human being.