Node authors may now create their own arbitrary/custom field types. Any pydantic model is supported.
Two notes:
1. Your field type's class name must be unique.
Suggest prefixing fields with something related to the node pack as a kind of namespace.
2. Custom field types function as connection-only fields.
For example, if your custom field has string attributes, you will not get a text input for that attribute when you give a node a field with your custom type.
This is the same behaviour as other complex fields that don't have custom UIs in the workflow editor - like, say, a string collection.
feat(ui): fix tooltips for custom types
We need to hold onto the original type of the field so they don't all just show up as "Unknown".
fix(ui): fix ts error with custom fields
feat(ui): custom field types connection validation
In the initial commit, a custom field's original type was added to the *field templates* only as `originalType`. Custom fields' `type` property was `"Custom"`*. This allowed for type safety throughout the UI logic.
*Actually, it was `"Unknown"`, but I changed it to custom for clarity.
Connection validation logic, however, uses the *field instance* of the node/field. Like the templates, *field instances* with custom types have their `type` set to `"Custom"`, but they didn't have an `originalType` property. As a result, all custom fields could be connected to all other custom fields.
To resolve this, we need to add `originalType` to the *field instances*, then switch the validation logic to use this instead of `type`.
This ended up needing a bit of fanagling:
- If we make `originalType` a required property on field instances, existing workflows will break during connection validation, because they won't have this property. We'd need a new layer of logic to migrate the workflows, adding the new `originalType` property.
While this layer is probably needed anyways, typing `originalType` as optional is much simpler. Workflow migration logic can come layer.
(Technically, we could remove all references to field types from the workflow files, and let the templates hold all this information. This feels like a significant change and I'm reluctant to do it now.)
- Because `originalType` is optional, anywhere we care about the type of a field, we need to use it over `type`. So there are a number of `field.originalType ?? field.type` expressions. This is a bit of a gotcha, we'll need to remember this in the future.
- We use `Array.prototype.includes()` often in the workflow editor, e.g. `COLLECTION_TYPES.includes(type)`. In these cases, the const array is of type `FieldType[]`, and `type` is is `FieldType`.
Because we now support custom types, the arg `type` is now widened from `FieldType` to `string`.
This causes a TS error. This behaviour is somewhat controversial (see https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/14520). These expressions are now rewritten as `COLLECTION_TYPES.some((t) => t === type)` to satisfy TS. It's logically equivalent.
fix(ui): typo
feat(ui): add CustomCollection and CustomPolymorphic field types
feat(ui): add validation for CustomCollection & CustomPolymorphic types
- Update connection validation for custom types
- Use simple string parsing to determine if a field is a collection or polymorphic type.
- No longer need to keep a list of collection and polymorphic types.
- Added runtime checks in `baseinvocation.py` to ensure no fields are named in such a way that it could mess up the new parsing
chore(ui): remove errant console.log
fix(ui): rename 'nodes.currentConnectionFieldType' -> 'nodes.connectionStartFieldType'
This was confusingly named and kept tripping me up. Renamed to be consistent with the `reactflow` `ConnectionStartParams` type.
fix(ui): fix ts error
feat(nodes): add runtime check for custom field names
"Custom", "CustomCollection" and "CustomPolymorphic" are reserved field names.
chore(ui): add TODO for revising field type names
wip refactor fieldtype structured
wip refactor field types
wip refactor types
wip refactor types
fix node layout
refactor field types
chore: mypy
organisation
organisation
organisation
fix(nodes): fix field orig_required, field_kind and input statuses
feat(nodes): remove broken implementation of default_factory on InputField
Use of this could break connection validation due to the difference in node schemas required fields and invoke() required args.
Removed entirely for now. It wasn't ever actually used by the system, because all graphs always had values provided for fields where default_factory was used.
Also, pydantic is smart enough to not reuse the same object when specifying a default value - it clones the object first. So, the common pattern of `default_factory=list` is extraneous. It can just be `default=[]`.
fix(nodes): fix InputField name validation
workflow validation
validation
chore: ruff
feat(nodes): fix up baseinvocation comments
fix(ui): improve typing & logic of buildFieldInputTemplate
improved error handling in parseFieldType
fix: back compat for deprecated default_factory and UIType
feat(nodes): do not show node packs loaded log if none loaded
chore(ui): typegen
We used the `RealESRGANer` utility class from the repo. It handled model loading and tiled upscaling logic.
Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated in over a year, had no types, and annoyingly printed to console.
I've adapted the class, cleaning it up a bit and removing the bits that are not relevant for us.
Upscaling functionality is identical.
## What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
- [ ] Refactor
- [ ] Feature
- [ ] Bug Fix
- [ ] Optimization
- [x] Documentation Update
- [ ] Community Node Submission
## Have you discussed this change with the InvokeAI team?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No, because:
## Have you updated all relevant documentation?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
## Description
Fixes wrong Q&A Troubleshooting link (original leads to 404)
## Related Tickets & Documents
<!--
For pull requests that relate or close an issue, please include them
below.
For example having the text: "closes #1234" would connect the current
pull
request to issue 1234. And when we merge the pull request, Github will
automatically close the issue.
-->
- Related Issue #
- Closes #
## QA Instructions, Screenshots, Recordings
<!--
Please provide steps on how to test changes, any hardware or
software specifications as well as any other pertinent information.
-->
## Added/updated tests?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No : _please replace this line with details on why tests
have not been included_
## [optional] Are there any post deployment tasks we need to perform?
