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

Tests: replacing the obsolete cudf.testing._utils.assert_eq calls #706

Merged

Conversation

madsbk
Copy link
Member

@madsbk madsbk commented Aug 18, 2021

Using from dask.dataframe.utils import assert_eq instead

@madsbk madsbk requested a review from a team as a code owner August 18, 2021 11:50
@github-actions github-actions bot added the python python code needed label Aug 18, 2021
@madsbk madsbk added 3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change and removed python python code needed labels Aug 18, 2021
Copy link
Member

@pentschev pentschev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks @madsbk !

@madsbk
Copy link
Member Author

madsbk commented Aug 18, 2021

Thanks @pentschev, I suspect that the last CI errors will be fixed with rapidsai/cudf#9031

@madsbk
Copy link
Member Author

madsbk commented Aug 18, 2021

@gpucibot merge

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Prem has a fix in PR ( dask/dask#8055 )

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

@jakirkham no, that doesn't fix it. I've commented about it in #705 (comment) and chatted with him offline, he's gonna take a look at it.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Just to confirm, did you see this change ( dask/dask#8055 (review) )?

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

Just to confirm, did you see this change ( dask/dask#8055 (review) )?

Yes, I just tested that PR locally (specifically the current latest commit dask/dask@4202401) and the dask-cuda still fail in my local environment.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Ok thanks. Noted that in the PR

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 19, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #706 (336702c) into branch-21.10 (8e6ab70) will increase coverage by 1.78%.
The diff coverage is 60.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           branch-21.10     #706      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         87.63%   89.42%   +1.78%     
================================================
  Files                15       15              
  Lines              1658     1692      +34     
================================================
+ Hits               1453     1513      +60     
+ Misses              205      179      -26     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
dask_cuda/cuda_worker.py 77.64% <ø> (ø)
dask_cuda/local_cuda_cluster.py 77.88% <0.00%> (ø)
dask_cuda/utils.py 84.25% <60.52%> (-3.03%) ⬇️
dask_cuda/initialize.py 92.59% <100.00%> (+3.70%) ⬆️
dask_cuda/explicit_comms/dataframe/shuffle.py 98.69% <0.00%> (+0.65%) ⬆️
dask_cuda/proxy_object.py 90.73% <0.00%> (+1.08%) ⬆️
dask_cuda/cli/dask_cuda_worker.py 97.14% <0.00%> (+1.42%) ⬆️
dask_cuda/device_host_file.py 71.77% <0.00%> (+1.61%) ⬆️
... and 3 more

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 4c175f4...336702c. Read the comment docs.

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit 7bdebc2 into rapidsai:branch-21.10 Aug 19, 2021
@madsbk madsbk deleted the replaced_obsolete_assert_eq branch August 19, 2021 07:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants