-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 215
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
Add option to show single progress bar for all workers #239
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
added type to single_bar argument
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #239 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.37% 90.55% -0.83%
==========================================
Files 12 12
Lines 580 593 +13
==========================================
+ Hits 530 537 +7
- Misses 50 56 +6
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
added type
added fixture for single_bar
fixed name
@till-m should I add tests for codecov? |
The uncovered lines seem to only relate to the use in notebooks, I don't know any convenient way to test them. If you have something, feel free to let me know. I will try to test them manually by tomorrow so that I can merge this with no further delay. |
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.
Hi @lpuglia,
I tested it, and it works, so the PR looks good in general to me.
Two small changes:
I think the code should either use single_bar
or single_progress_bar
, not both. And I would also ask you to briefly document the functionality in the user guide.
@till-m done. |
@@ -470,6 +474,7 @@ def initialize( | |||
if use_memory_fs | |||
else parallelize_with_pipe | |||
) | |||
parallelize = partial(parallelize, single_bar=single_bar) |
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.
IMO instead it would be better to supply the argument in lines 528 onward as it is currently done with the arguments of parallelize
. @nalepae any opinion?
This is feature is so important that this PR almost brought a tear in my eyes |
Not sure why ApolloBian didn't reply further to the PR(#203) but i'm here to make sure this change is merged.