Update Documentation #531
Update Documentation #531
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on renaming resource allocation parameters in the executorlib library. The changes involve updating the parameter names Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/trouble_shooting.md(2 hunks)executorlib/__init__.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
docs/trouble_shooting.md (2)
34-36: LGTM! Parameter names updated consistently
The resource dictionary parameter names have been updated correctly from cores_per_worker to cores and gpus_per_worker to gpus_per_core. The descriptions are clear and maintain consistency with the implementation.
57-57: LGTM! SSH connection clarification
The SSH connection limitation explanation is clear and accurately describes the serialization requirements with cloudpickle.
executorlib/__init__.py (1)
38-40: LGTM! Parameter documentation updated consistently
The resource dictionary parameter documentation in the Executor class has been updated correctly, maintaining consistency with the changes in trouble_shooting.md. The parameter names cores and gpus_per_core are properly documented with clear descriptions.
| - cores (int): number of MPI cores to be used for each function call | ||
| - threads_per_core (int): number of OpenMP threads to be used for each function call | ||
| - gpus_per_worker (int): number of GPUs per worker - defaults to 0 | ||
| - gpus_per_core (int): number of GPUs per worker - defaults to 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Parameter naming inconsistency detected across codebase
The verification reveals inconsistent parameter naming between the docstring and actual implementation:
- The docstring uses
cores,threads_per_core, andgpus_per_core - The codebase still uses old parameter names like
cores_per_workerandgpus_per_workerin multiple files:executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.pyexecutorlib/interactive/executor.pyexecutorlib/standalone/serialize.pytests/test_shared_input_check.py
This inconsistency needs to be addressed to maintain code clarity and prevent potential bugs.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify complete parameter renaming across codebase
Let's ensure there are no remaining occurrences of the old parameter names to maintain consistency.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining instances of old parameter names
echo "Checking for old parameter names..."
rg -i "cores_per_worker|gpus_per_worker" --type py --type md
# Search for new parameter names to verify consistent usage
echo -e "\nVerifying new parameter names..."
rg -i "cores.*=|gpus_per_core" --type py --type md
Length of output: 14477
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
trouble_shooting.mddocument to clarify parameter descriptions and renamecores_per_workertocoresandgpus_per_workertogpus_per_core.New Features
Executorclass.