Skip to content
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

Hiding implementation details for lap, clustering, spectral, and label #477

Merged

Conversation

cjnolet
Copy link
Member

@cjnolet cjnolet commented Feb 1, 2022

Also managed to remove the raft host/device buffers in the process

@cjnolet cjnolet requested review from a team as code owners February 1, 2022 22:10
@cjnolet cjnolet added 3 - Ready for Review breaking Breaking change improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function and removed cpp CMake labels Feb 1, 2022
@cjnolet
Copy link
Member Author

cjnolet commented Feb 1, 2022

I realize I have a lot of copyrights to update :-)

Copy link
Member

@divyegala divyegala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks very nice! Just a formatting question

@@ -60,7 +62,12 @@ TEST(Raft, ModularitySolvers)
using value_type = double;

handle_t h;
ASSERT_EQ(0, h.get_device());
ASSERT_EQ(0,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did something go wrong here with the formatting?

@@ -34,7 +36,12 @@ TEST(Raft, EigenSolvers)
using value_type = double;

handle_t h;
ASSERT_EQ(0, h.get_device());
ASSERT_EQ(0,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above

@@ -75,7 +82,12 @@ TEST(Raft, SpectralSolvers)
using value_type = double;

handle_t h;
ASSERT_EQ(0, h.get_device());
ASSERT_EQ(0,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ooh, this one is strange. I'm not sure why clang-format did this.

@cjnolet
Copy link
Member Author

cjnolet commented Feb 2, 2022

rerun tests

@cjnolet cjnolet removed the request for review from a team February 2, 2022 20:26
@cjnolet cjnolet requested review from a team as code owners February 4, 2022 19:40
@cjnolet
Copy link
Member Author

cjnolet commented Feb 9, 2022

@gpucibot merge

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit 2ebf89c into rapidsai:branch-22.04 Feb 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3 - Ready for Review breaking Breaking change CMake cpp improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants