-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 212
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 test for literal getproperty overwrite #925
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.
Awesome, thanks for doing this! LGTM.
Cheers! I don't have merge rights, could you please merge? |
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.
bors r+
925: add test for literal getproperty overwrite r=DhairyaLGandhi a=mzgubic Another small thing that came from #922 , namely #922 (comment). Writing a separate @adjoint for `literal_getproperty`, which shouldn't be done, passes all tests at the moment. This test will fail if a custom adjoint is written for `literal_getproperty`. @simeonschaub this is from our discussion yesterday Co-authored-by: Miha Zgubic <[email protected]>
Build failed: |
That can't be related, right? |
Hmm, let's try again bors r+ |
925: add test for literal getproperty overwrite r=DhairyaLGandhi a=mzgubic Another small thing that came from #922 , namely #922 (comment). Writing a separate @adjoint for `literal_getproperty`, which shouldn't be done, passes all tests at the moment. This test will fail if a custom adjoint is written for `literal_getproperty`. @simeonschaub this is from our discussion yesterday Co-authored-by: Miha Zgubic <[email protected]>
Build failed: |
bors r+ |
Build succeeded: |
Another small thing that came from #922 , namely #922 (comment).
Writing a separate @adjoint for
literal_getproperty
, which shouldn't be done, passes all tests at the moment. This test will fail if a custom adjoint is written forliteral_getproperty
.@simeonschaub this is from our discussion yesterday