Move TFDV stats to higher-numbered protobuf fields #669
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Within the Feast v0.5 release cycle these fields have not been in a release yet, so it's safe to renumber them. The motivation is reserving the lower-numbered fields for optimal encoding, referenced in the patch. Closes feast-dev#667
ches
requested review from
davidheryanto,
khorshuheng,
pradithya,
woop and
zhilingc
as code owners
|
/assign @khorshuheng |
woop
approved these changes
May 1, 2020
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ches, woop The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/lgtm |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What this PR does / why we need it:
See #667—the motivation is reserving the lower-numbered fields for optimal encoding. Might be a premature optimization given
FeatureSpecis not a high-throughput message, but the cost of change is practically nothing.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #667
References #536 where the
labelsfield number has changed from 19 to 16. Could just keep it at 19, but meh, unless anyone chimes in that they run Feast master in production and started using this since it was merged yesterday 😇Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Since there has been no Feast release with these new fields yet, renumbering is not breaking.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Vim,
27<C-a>and the.operator for assistance in this difficult task.