-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
LoopyKeyBuilder: improve BasicSet handling #913
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
Draft
matthiasdiener
wants to merge
6
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
lkb-basicset
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+35
−6
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
73b56a6
LoopyKeyBuilder: improve BasicSet handling
matthiasdiener f5fcc35
Merge branch 'main' into lkb-basicset
matthiasdiener 42c345c
Merge branch 'main' into lkb-basicset
matthiasdiener bca59c4
Merge branch 'main' into lkb-basicset
matthiasdiener 075b0d9
Merge branch 'main' into lkb-basicset
matthiasdiener d771d2c
Merge branch 'main' into lkb-basicset
matthiasdiener File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
This behavior is pretty 💩-tastic. I'm not super interested in codifying it with a test.
If I could snap my finger and have a solution enacted globally, probably I would like
==
,plain_is_equal
and__hash__
to all share a notion of equality. Something for namedisl to aspire to.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.
Aside from the test, would you still be interested in changing the way the hash is calculated, as in this PR?
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
namedisl
is the only reasonable path forward. I don't know that I'd like to mess with the status quo too much until that time, unless there is a pressing reason. Is there one, in the context of this PR?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 don't think there is a pressing need for this PR. The goal was to enable running the tests with LOOPY_ABORT_ON_CACHE_MISS (#828).