Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove logic for uneeded extra chunks #159

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator

Problem & Solution Description (including issue #)

Code Quality

  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • I have written unit tests or justified all instances of #pragma: no cover; in the case of a bugfix, a new test that breaks as a result of the bug has been added
  • My code contains relevant comments and necessary documentation for future maintainers; the change is reflected in applicable demos/tutorials (with output cleared!) and added/updated docstrings use the NumPy docstring format
  • Any breaking changes, described above, are accompanied by backwards compatibility and deprecation warnings

@eacharles eacharles requested review from joezuntz and joselotl August 13, 2024 02:08
@eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator Author

#154

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 13, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.47%. Comparing base (482235d) to head (1272d15).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #159      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.47%   98.47%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          45       45              
  Lines        2485     2484       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         2447     2446       -1     
  Misses         38       38              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@joselotl
Copy link
Contributor

Originally, if one of the iterators doesn't have any input data the output will complain. I used sys.exit to free the unused nodes, but I'm guessing this messes with the next stages in a pipeline. Still, I think it needs somehow to tell the unused nodes not to expect an output

@eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can we catch the issue in the writing of the output?

Copy link
Contributor

@ztq1996 ztq1996 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good

@eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Let's wait and hear more from Josue about how we might solve downstream issues before we merge this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants