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

Add clone and merge candidates #31

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 25, 2020

Conversation

shreyas-kowshik
Copy link
Contributor

The older merge-candidates code that we were using was sort of a work-around.
This code is more updated. But it may have some bugs and we are currently figuring them out in our work as well.

@guyvdbroeck guyvdbroeck requested a review from MhDang July 24, 2020 03:25
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jul 24, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #31 into master will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #31      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.00%   95.06%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        1640     1660      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits         1558     1578      +20     
  Misses         82       82              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/transformations.jl 98.47% <100.00%> (+0.17%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e4f5062...decb569. Read the comment docs.

@guyvdbroeck
Copy link
Member

Thanks, this is certainly a useful addition. Any chance we can have a small unit test for it?

@shreyas-kowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let me add tests for clone_candidates.
For merge_candidates I believe the probabilistic-checking needs fixes as you pointed out and so perhaps we should add them after that is done?

@guyvdbroeck
Copy link
Member

Let's indeed leave out merge_candidates for now, it has other concerns, for example that it requires a vtree.
Also then our code coverage does not decrease.
The clone_candidates looks good as is. In future, we'd like to avoid having to use Dict for this, since it's slow. One thing you could do is use the ability to count parents in graphs.jl by doing a foreach without resetting the node.counter field. Then you can do a filter based on the number of parents. Not sure if it would be faster, so not a priority.
If you remove the merge_candidates I will accept the pull request.

@shreyas-kowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Removed merge_candidates

@guyvdbroeck guyvdbroeck merged commit 949d964 into Tractables:master Jul 25, 2020
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