-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
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
Conditions updated to cover better user scenarios #4951
Conversation
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.
Thanks for the contribution, please add a regression test case to show what the new scenario did the PR cover
@tqchen : I have uploaded test cases for the scenarios. Thanks! |
cc @slyubomirsky @MarisaKirisame @zhiics please help to take a look |
There is a neat trick to test for commutative bug. |
@MarisaKirisame , @zhiics : Thanks for your efforts in reviewing code and your valuable comments. I have handled all your comments. Please correct me if i am mistaken anyplace. Thanks! |
can you, in tests/python/relay/test_pass_alpha_equal.py and use test_alpha_equal for those tests? |
@MarisaKirisame : Thanks for such detailed description. I got your point from the last comment. But one of these scenarios is special. It was not possible to hit from python test cases. That is the reason i added in cpp test case. And i believe that the unit test cases should be in cpp, not in python, as the back-end implementations are in cpp. Python test cases should be used for functional tests. But that is my belief. I hope i didn't misunderstood your comment. Please help me clarify if i am mistaken. Thanks a lot! |
I agree that they should be in C++, but can you add such function hook there? |
@MarisaKirisame : Thanks! I have made changes as per your comments, please check! |
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.
LGTM. One nitpick.
@zhiics : Thanks for approving PR! I have made changes as per your feedback. Please check. Thanks! |
This PR is among one of the PRs affected by the github squash commit bug. We take every contribution serious in the TVM community. The community has decided to use revert/redo approach to amend the contributions as per #5015 @ANSHUMAN87 Please let us know if you would like us to revert the PR and resend the contribution. Thank you |
@tqchen : Thanks a lot! Please revert the merged one. I will raise again. |
ping @tqchen |
@ANSHUMAN87 the revert PR has been merged, please send another PR to add the patch back :) |
@tqchen: Thanks a lot! I have raised new PR now(#5043). Please check and approve. Thanks! |
* Conditions updated to cover better user scenarios * [1] New test case added * [2] New test case added * [3] Proper variable name used * [4] Review Comments handled * [5] Review comments handled * [6] Review comments handled
…" (apache#5032) This reverts commit fe74b37.
* Conditions updated to cover better user scenarios * [1] New test case added * [2] New test case added * [3] Proper variable name used * [4] Review Comments handled * [5] Review comments handled * [6] Review comments handled
…" (apache#5032) This reverts commit fe74b37.
@tqchen , @ZihengJiang, @jroesch, @merrymercy
Sorry if i miss any one who is relevant to this component.