-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 309
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
nx-cugraph: Updates nxcg.Graph classes for API-compatibility with NetworkX Graph classes, needed for zero code change graph generators #4629
Changes from all commits
7cf65b9
e6fb453
0b80ccf
24a9788
e51955c
445a4da
5a56774
b6f3308
04f88ff
d615fed
b58388a
a8502cb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ echo "nx-cugraph coverage from networkx tests: $_coverage" | |
echo $_coverage | awk '{ if ($NF == "0.0%") exit 1 }' | ||
# Ensure all algorithms were called by comparing covered lines to function lines. | ||
# Run our tests again (they're fast enough) to add their coverage, then create coverage.json | ||
pytest \ | ||
NX_CUGRAPH_USE_COMPAT_GRAPHS=False pytest \ | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you explain why this is False? It reads as if we're not getting test coverage from the NX suite for the "compat" Graph, which seems bad, but maybe it's necessary for now? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This should work for both There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why can't we test both? If we have to pick one, shouldn't we pick compat since (I'm assuming) it will be used much more? |
||
--pyargs nx_cugraph \ | ||
--config-file=../pyproject.toml \ | ||
--cov-config=../pyproject.toml \ | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ dependencies: | |
- nvcc_linux-64=11.8 | ||
- ogb | ||
- openmpi | ||
- packaging>=21 | ||
- pandas | ||
- pre-commit | ||
- pydantic | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ dependencies: | |
- numpydoc | ||
- ogb | ||
- openmpi | ||
- packaging>=21 | ||
- pandas | ||
- pre-commit | ||
- pydantic | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should minimize the public API surface area and expose only the "compat" graph. We're not getting backwards compatibility by exposing both classes anyway, so we can expose
GPUGraph
(which I'm assuming is the non-compat graph) to users later if needed.Or...do we get additional coverage by testing both compat and non-compat separately? I'd still prefer to start small and expand the API/our support burden as needed, but I can appreciate if it's used to get additional test coverage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is used to get addition test coverage. We can change the environment variable to something like
_NX_CUGRAPH_USE_COMPAT_GRAPHS
and use it as an internal implementation detail.