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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW] Update the Random Walk binding #1599

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jun 3, 2021
Merged

[REVIEW] Update the Random Walk binding #1599

merged 12 commits into from
Jun 3, 2021

Conversation

Iroy30
Copy link
Contributor

@Iroy30 Iroy30 commented May 11, 2021

Closes #1579

@Iroy30 Iroy30 requested review from a team as code owners May 11, 2021 21:35
@Iroy30 Iroy30 changed the title [WIP] RW binding update [REVIEW] RW binding update May 12, 2021
@Iroy30 Iroy30 added 3 - Ready for Review improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change labels May 12, 2021
@BradReesWork BradReesWork added this to the 21.06 milestone May 13, 2021
@BradReesWork
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

Powered by ReviewNB

@BradReesWork BradReesWork changed the title [REVIEW] RW binding update [REVIEW] Update the Random Walk binding Jun 1, 2021
jnke2016
jnke2016 reviewed Jun 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
python/cugraph/sampling/random_walks.py
return df, offsets
if use_padding:
edge_set_sz = (max_depth-1)*len(start_vertices)
return vertex_set, edge_set[:edge_set_sz], sizes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am just wondering if it is worth returning sizes = None

jnke2016
jnke2016 reviewed Jun 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
python/cugraph/tests/test_random_walks.py
max_depth=None
):
def calc_random_walks(graph_file,
directed=False,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

outdated description

@Iroy30 Iroy30 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 2, 2021 15:37
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-21.06@4e20f73). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 926caf7 differs from pull request most recent head 1562010. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1562010 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-21.06    #1599   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   59.93%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?       80           
  Lines                   ?     3542           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     2123           
  Misses                  ?     1419           
  Partials                ?        0

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 4e20f73...1562010. Read the comment docs.

rlratzel
rlratzel requested changes Jun 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rlratzel rlratzel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding additional tests. I have just one hopefully quick request.

python/cugraph/sampling/random_walks.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@BradReesWork
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

1 similar comment
@BradReesWork
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@BradReesWork
Copy link
Member

@gpucibot merge

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit 637c139 into rapidsai:branch-21.06 Jun 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jnke2016 jnke2016 jnke2016 approved these changes

@ChuckHastings ChuckHastings ChuckHastings approved these changes

@aschaffer aschaffer aschaffer approved these changes

@BradReesWork BradReesWork BradReesWork approved these changes

@rlratzel rlratzel rlratzel approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Milestone
21.06
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@Iroy30 @BradReesWork @codecov-commenter @rlratzel @aschaffer @ChuckHastings @jnke2016