-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 582
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
Migrate reorder_examples
to the IR
#3923
Conversation
hypothesis-python/src/hypothesis/internal/conjecture/junkdrawer.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
If there are no
Unfortunately "something about the shrinker" is about all I've got too 😅 |
Happy to find out that the pareto test was a genuine failure! Fixed in 57d3a39; |
saw and fixed a flake, roughly once every 300 runs in local testing: https://github.com/HypothesisWorks/hypothesis/actions/runs/8317232496/job/22757739074#step:6:877 / d936526. Doubt it's related to these changes. |
Just saw |
noticed when I was working on this pr as well. Added a suppression for it on this branch earlier (now e: nope, we're filtering too much. left a todo |
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.
Looks good, merge when ready!
nice! rebased and added a changelog, let's hope ci is happy. |
Part of #3921.
There's a failure on
test_optimises_the_pareto_front
:I am still fuzzy on the purpose of the pareto front for cases when
target()
is not involved. Withtarget()
, it's clear to me that we want to keep the pareto front of all distinct target keys. But what metric are we optimizing over when there are notarget
calls?But I'm even less clear why my changes broke it beyond "ParetoFront uses shrinker and this pull changes the shrinker". If I'm lucky you'll immediately have an idea what the problem is 😄 but otherwise I'll pick up here again tomorrow.