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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Remove SVM dependency on agave-feature-set #5841
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
Remove SVM dependency on agave-feature-set #5841
Changes from 2 commits
bb102f7
9f58db3
7281edb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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 seems like a lot of repeated code. Do you think we can abstract this initialization in a macro? The struct members are named the same as the features.
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'll remove the possibility of naming the feature ID with a different name than what we call in SVM repo. It's easier to call it the same since the features already exist. But, when SVM is a separate repo, it might be extra work to enforce it.
We can probably add a macro in a separate PR, so if we don't like the rigidity in the future we can just revert that 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.
Any chance we can take this opportunity to get rid of the
Arc
? I can't think of anywhere we actually need a thread-safe atomic reference to a set ofOption<Slot>
. The feature set should be frozen from the time SVM is instantiated to to the time it's torn down.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 was keeping this change for a follow on PR, as it'll increase the size of this PR. Let me see how much additional changes it'll cause. If it's reasonable, I will update it 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.
Ok, follow-up PR is also okay, but I definitely think we should take the opportunity to eliminate it while our attention is here.