-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 811
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 __next__ method to RawTextIterableDataset #1141
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d26aad7
add __next__ method to RawTextIterableDataset
43a446c
Merge branch 'master' into next_method
e77510c
Merge branch 'master' into next_method
7b887f3
add a CI test
0df01b0
Merge branch 'master' into next_method
72f4b6c
sync with master branch
d15ad30
refactor the test
ed9aa01
checkpoint
97739c7
Merge branch 'master' into next_method
54e6f97
switch to next() method
c47cdb3
Merge branch 'master' into next_method
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ def __iter__(self): | |
break | ||
yield item | ||
|
||
def __next__(self): | ||
item = self._iterator.__next__() | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. You can just use |
||
return item | ||
|
||
def __len__(self): | ||
if self.has_setup: | ||
return self.num_lines | ||
|
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.
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.
One concern I have with this approach is the following:
What happens if you do this:
The counter on line 40
for i, item in enumerate(self._iterator):
is checking self.start and self.num_lines, but self._iterator will have been forwarded by the call to next. I expect that above loop will run twice as much as expected.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.
Add a CI test to cover this case. https://github.com/pytorch/text/pull/1141/files#diff-1154fb0ac2ec7b1fbd994e75fa0e50a3ac102a4f10d0c7bb142047926a83fffeR147
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.
Yes, so this holds true then. next is meant to deplete the iterator, but instead the loop runs for the entirety of the dataset.
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, I tried the similar thing (also update the test case)
The original text file is