-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 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
Use elif
in Dask deserialize check
#4537
Use elif
in Dask deserialize check
#4537
Conversation
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ def deserialize_cudf_object(header, frames): | |||
# some frames are empty -- meta/empty partitions/etc | |||
if len(f) > 0: | |||
assert hasattr(f, "__cuda_array_interface__") | |||
if header["serializer"] == "dask": | |||
elif header["serializer"] == "dask": |
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.
Moving discussion to here. I understand that this should be elif
, but how could both conditions evaluate to True here regardless?
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.
It wouldn't be possible.
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.
@kkraus14 are you suggesting this should be else
and not elif
?
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.
No, I wasn't aware that header['serializer']
could be a list of elements, but I'm still not clear on how both conditions could trigger here because it's ==
.
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 that is incorrect. header["serializer"]
should only be a single str
with a serializer named.
Ben was mentioning that multiple serializers could be used to transform the data (and its various components), which is different from the value seen here.
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.
@jakirkham So then is this a fix for something or just preventing an additional conditional check?
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.
Just preventing an additional check. Something I stumbled across recently when looking at the serialization code.
rerun tests |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## branch-0.13 #4537 +/- ##
===============================================
+ Coverage 88.68% 88.70% +0.01%
===============================================
Files 50 50
Lines 9800 9850 +50
===============================================
+ Hits 8691 8737 +46
- Misses 1109 1113 +4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Slight tweak to the checks added in PR ( #4423 ).