Conversation
96cb457 to
ae6835f
Compare
|
@stefan6419846 I need some help with this. ruff and Python both are complaining about |
|
Please try to rebase on the latest main - your base appears to be outdated and the corresponding import is gone in main. |
5f25cc9 to
2c3fb66
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3442 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.97% 96.98%
=======================================
Files 54 54
Lines 9337 9344 +7
Branches 1711 1713 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 9055 9062 +7
Misses 168 168
Partials 114 114 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
That worked. Thank you! The PR should be ready now. |
|
Thanks for the PR. This code seems to assume that the named destinations never change. Is this really a valid assumption or will this create unexpected behavior in specific cases? |
|
It does assume the destinations never change. Originally I put this cache on the shared superclass for readers and writers, but then had the same realization as you. So now this code is only in the |
|
Thanks for the explanation - indeed, in the reader it should not be an issue. Are we able to add a test for this? |
|
Hmmm. What sort of tests are you looking for? Tests of changing the named destinations in the reader? I guess not, since that's not supposed to be possible. Tests of changing the named destinations in the writer? It doesn't use this code, but I guess I could add. Or just tests of reading named destinations at all? Those might already exist for all I know, but I could check, once I know what you're thinking. |
|
Sorry for not being explicit enough - I am referring to the fact that these are cached. One possible approach would be to check the time for handling many destinations the first and the second time, although I am open for other tests as well. |
This optimization solves the performance issue introduced by PR #3400.
Without this optimization
test_merger.pytakes 124 seconds on my laptop after PR 3400. With this optimization it takes 6.6 seconds.Very likely this optimization will benefit other code as well.