Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

BUG fix reported number of jobs in effective_n_jobs - #985

Merged
ogrisel merged 10 commits into
joblib:masterfrom
glemaitre:is/984
Jan 6, 2020
Merged

BUG fix reported number of jobs in effective_n_jobs#985
ogrisel merged 10 commits into
joblib:masterfrom
glemaitre:is/984

Conversation

@glemaitre

@glemaitre glemaitre commented Jan 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

closes #984

When n_jobs=None is passed to effective_n_jobs, the number of reported jobs should be equal to either 1 or the default in the current backend.

tomMoral
tomMoral reviewed Jan 3, 2020
View reviewed changes

@tomMoral tomMoral left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couple of comments

Comment thread joblib/parallel.py Outdated
Comment thread joblib/test/test_parallel.py
ogrisel
ogrisel reviewed Jan 3, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment thread joblib/parallel.py Outdated
@glemaitre

glemaitre commented Jan 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Uhm some of the errors are cryptic. Any idea what is the impact of this PR on the hash?

tomMoral
tomMoral approved these changes Jan 3, 2020
View reviewed changes

@tomMoral tomMoral left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This LGTM

@tomMoral

tomMoral commented Jan 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I don't know what are these failures. It does not look like it is related to this PR.

ogrisel
ogrisel reviewed Jan 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment thread joblib/parallel.py Outdated
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jan 6, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Merging #985 into master will decrease coverage by 0.82%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #985      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    95.4%   94.58%   -0.83%     
==========================================
  Files          45       45              
  Lines        6638     6645       +7     
==========================================
- Hits         6333     6285      -48     
- Misses        305      360      +55
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
joblib/test/test_parallel.py 95.92% <100%> (-0.82%) ⬇️
joblib/parallel.py 96.7% <100%> (-0.54%) ⬇️
joblib/backports.py 39.58% <0%> (-54.17%) ⬇️
joblib/_parallel_backends.py 93.65% <0%> (-2.62%) ⬇️
joblib/pool.py 89.65% <0%> (-1.73%) ⬇️
joblib/test/common.py 86.44% <0%> (-1.7%) ⬇️
joblib/disk.py 80% <0%> (-1.67%) ⬇️
joblib/test/test_dask.py 97.04% <0%> (-1.48%) ⬇️
joblib/logger.py 85.52% <0%> (-1.32%) ⬇️
joblib/func_inspect.py 94.31% <0%> (-1.14%) ⬇️
... and 5 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 12c2b2b...d0ccbbe. Read the comment docs.

@glemaitre

glemaitre commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@ogrisel any idea about the other failure in Travis?

@ogrisel

ogrisel commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I am having a look in this PR: #986

I have even weirder failures on my local machine...

@tomMoral

tomMoral commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This seems to be due to the new release of coverage: pymc-devs/pymc#3735

pinning coverage to coverage<5.0 did the trick for pymc3.

@glemaitre

glemaitre commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I pinned coverage. I think that the original issue could be the following: coveragepy/coveragepy#883

@glemaitre

glemaitre commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed conflict. This should be fine now.

@ogrisel

ogrisel commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The new test need to be decorated with @with_multiprocessing.

ogrisel
ogrisel reviewed Jan 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment thread joblib/test/test_parallel.py
ogrisel
ogrisel approved these changes Jan 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

@ogrisel ogrisel left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Feel free to merge my suggestion or not. It's just a nitpick.

@ogrisel

ogrisel commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Also please document the change in the changelog.

@glemaitre

glemaitre commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Failure is only a timeout.

@ogrisel

ogrisel commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Changelog?

ogrisel
ogrisel reviewed Jan 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment thread CHANGES.rst Outdated
@ogrisel
ogrisel merged commit f6b7990 into joblib:master Jan 6, 2020
@ogrisel

ogrisel commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Merged \o/ ! Thanks @glemaitre !

@tomMoral

tomMoral commented Jan 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks @glemaitre !!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@ogrisel ogrisel ogrisel approved these changes
@tomMoral tomMoral tomMoral approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Wrong number of workers reported by effective_n_jobs

3 participants

@glemaitre @tomMoral @ogrisel