Is this file necessary? looks like it should be auto-generated during tests in a temp folder

oh good catch I didn't mean to check this in

binary files in a tests folder are scary these days lol 😄

I'm still a little confused about the required signature here. Are these functions supposed to accept a dict of lists (looks like that in this test) and apply the udf for all entities at once? I thought from the previous PR that the goal was to have a udf that would be applied to individual entities...

Can you also alter the tests so that more than one entity is passed? this will probably fail in such a case as only first entity is processed. If we are sticking with this signature, udf should look something like this:

return {
                'conv_rate_plus_acc_python': [
                    conv_rate + acc_rate
                    for conv_rate, acc_rate in zip(inputs['conv_rate'], inputs['acc_rate'])
                ]
            }

If you look at _infer_features_dict you'll see it expects a dict of lists. I added an explicit test that shows this will result in a type failure when running the apply operations. We can add singleton execution as a follow up but this is sufficient to highlight the currently supported behavior and then we can cut a release.

@franciscojavierarceo got it, good... that's probably more efficient anyway. no rush, but in that case it will probably be a good idea to change type annotations for relevant functions to Dict[str, List[Any]].

I actually originally had that setup but I received a ton of type failures from that which is why I did it this way.

Let me address both of those as folllowups. I want to merge this and cut a release.

I made an issue here #4075, will close it later.