Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RicketyCricket t1_je5j2n9 wrote

Reply to comment by _Arsenie_Boca_ in [D] Alternatives to fb Hydra? by alyflex

Most of the cool stuff is buried in the docs under advanced features :-)

https://fidelity.github.io/spock/advanced_features/Composition

(full transparency I'm the author/maintainer/core-developer. I know the docs need a re-org to surface more of the useful features)

7

RicketyCricket t1_je5jchr wrote

This being my favorite hidden one:

https://fidelity.github.io/spock/advanced_features/Evolve#maintaining-cli-and-python-api-configuration-parity

3

RicketyCricket t1_je5kgy4 wrote

second favorite:

https://fidelity.github.io/spock/advanced_features/Post-Hooks

Basically lets you do any validation necessary on your configs. Spock provides some basics (greater than, within bounds, etc) but it's totally up to the user via any simple asserts or validation functions a user wants to write.

3

_Arsenie_Boca_ t1_je6ayl7 wrote

Thanks, looks like your library isn't far behind hydra in terms of functionality. Will definitely look into it more closely the next time I set up a project.

What would you say are the pros and cons between hydra and spock?

1

RicketyCricket t1_je9lp7z wrote

Mainly that Spock is much lighter weight and really focuses on just configuration management and stateful ness. Hydra has all these crazy bells and whistles (Ray integration etc) that could be useful for certain things but kinda starts meandering from the original purpose of configuration management imo. Hydra is great and if it works for you then use it. We built Spock internally when I was at Fidelity because Hydra didn’t exist… just so happens that FB/Meta was doing the same thing at the same time so both libraries end up covering a very similar usage space

1

_Arsenie_Boca_ t1_je9n0ea wrote

Thanks, I basically use only the config part of hydra and am regularly annoyed that its so clunky, so spock might be a good alternative. Gonna check it out :)

1