Train Data Params/a = {} Train Data Params/b = ...Then maybe we could "hack" it so that if you edit it in the UI like so:
Train Data Params/a = {'new': 'value'} Train Data Params/b = ...You end up with
param = {'a': {'new': 'value'}, 'b' : ... }What do you think?

task.connect({'a':{},'b':'moshe'}, name='Train Data Params'))how this would then be appeared in the UI? (assume I don't want to update said empty dict for the moment)

Hahaha, you got me confused

simply record the type of each argument when you store it, and keep it in the database, unbeknownst to the user, what do you say?

This is now supported, but then you still need to flatten the dict.
Maybe we can just support "empty_dict/new_value = 42" if the original was "empty_dict = {}"
WDYT?

Okay, another suggestion, simply record the type of each argument when you store it, and keep it in the database, unbeknownst to the user, what do you say?

Would I be able to add customized columns like I am able to in 

task.connect

 ? Same question applies for parallel coordinates and all kinds of comparisons

No to both 😞

Hi AgitatedDove14 ,
How could this be used in case of multiple configurations per task? How can I name such configuration?
Also this is sadly much less readable.
Would I be able to add customized columns like I am able to in task.connect ? Same question applies for parallel coordinates and all kinds of comparisons

SmarmySeaurchin8 what do you think?
https://github.com/allegroai/trains/issues/265#issuecomment-748543102

task.connect_configuration

Usually it's not an empty dict, it's optional additional keyword arguments. But it can also be empty if there is no optional keyword required.

yes ...
What's your use case for passing an empty dict ? (meaning how would one use it later)

I understand how this is problematic. This might require more thinking if you guys wish to support this.

SmarmySeaurchin8 regrading (2)
I'm not sure the current visualization supports it. I mean we can put "{}", but that would imply you can edit it, which then we have to support, possible but weird, and this is why:
task.connect({'a':{},'b': {'nested': 'value}}will become
'a' = '{}'
'b/nested' = 'value'
But then if you edit to:
'a' = '{'nested': 'value'}'
'b/nested' = 'value'
you have two different ways of presenting the same type of structure...

Sure That's a really good question I am not sure how to answer. I know there is the problem of visualizing '{}' and visualizing {}. Maybe a bolded {} like this: {} ? or like this {} ? to emphasize the difference?

Hi SmarmySeaurchin8
Could you open a bug on GitHub, so this is not lost? Let's assume 'a' is tracked, how would one change 'a' in the UI?