Deduplicate legacy _ctor and _new Python bindings #73822
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux amis because we could say that the constructor and new method should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it. There is only very slight differences between the two functions: different error messages, and the new method does extra checks to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <[email protected]> [ghstack-poisoned]
CI Flow Status⚛️ CI FlowRuleset - Version:
|
Contributor
🔗 Helpful links
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 3f5a7ed (more details on the Dr. CI page): 💚 💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚 💚 This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group. |
ezyang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2022
I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux amis because we could say that the constructor and new method should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it. There is only very slight differences between the two functions: different error messages, and the new method does extra checks to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangfb.com> ghstack-source-id: c4afe59 Pull Request resolved: #73822
Contributor
Author
|
@ezyang has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
anjali411
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2022
bdhirsh
reviewed
Mar 7, 2022
| throw std::runtime_error("new(): invalid arguments"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Tensor legacy_tensor_new(c10::DispatchKey dispatch_key, at::ScalarType scalar_type, PyObject* args, PyObject* kwargs) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
didn't even know this existed haha
Contributor
Author
|
@pytorchbot merge this |
Collaborator
|
Merge failed due to PR 73822 does not match merge rules |
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: #73822 I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux amis because we could say that the constructor and new method should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it. There is only very slight differences between the two functions: different error messages, and the new method does extra checks to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <[email protected]> Test Plan: Imported from OSS Reviewed By: anjali411 Differential Revision: D34665171 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: bd40ec7f6e694bfeff4e4aaab2f4e95cea250b65
Contributor
|
Hey @ezyang. |
ezyang
added
release notes: composability
cyyever
pushed a commit
to cyyever/pytorch_private
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#73822 I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux amis because we could say that the constructor and new method should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it. There is only very slight differences between the two functions: different error messages, and the new method does extra checks to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <[email protected]> Test Plan: Imported from OSS Reviewed By: anjali411 Differential Revision: D34665171 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: bd40ec7f6e694bfeff4e4aaab2f4e95cea250b65 (cherry picked from commit 10a03926d8d8f36506c9a3d62cf2c380f559b00b)
cyyever
pushed a commit
to cyyever/pytorch_private
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#73822 I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux amis because we could say that the constructor and new method should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it. There is only very slight differences between the two functions: different error messages, and the new method does extra checks to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <[email protected]> Test Plan: Imported from OSS Reviewed By: anjali411 Differential Revision: D34665171 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: bd40ec7f6e694bfeff4e4aaab2f4e95cea250b65 (cherry picked from commit 10a03926d8d8f36506c9a3d62cf2c380f559b00b)
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
I guess hypothetically the logic duplication here is a faux
amis because we could say that the constructor and new method
should evolve APIs independently... but nah, it's not worth it.
There is only very slight differences between the two functions:
different error messages, and the new method does extra checks
to make sure the requested types are consistent with the base
Tensor. But I need to refactor this code and I really don't want
to do the refactor twice. So dedupe first.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang [email protected]
Differential Revision: D34665171