-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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
Cleanup API: Refactor request on-complete transition #80
Conversation
Conflicts: src/translator/response.cpp -> Bringing to sync with ByteArray updates src/translator/response.h -> Bringing to sync with ByteArray updates
We however have Histories in constructor, which we will remove out of the way soon.
…entence is happening
One concern about friends: can we mock out the system? It can be useful for users to be able to make their own response object for testing purposes. |
|
||
QualityScoreType qualityScoreType{QualityScoreType::FREE}; | ||
ConcatStrategy concatStrategy{ConcatStrategy::FAITHFUL}; | ||
}; |
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.
@kpu Removed the Options
in favour of a cpp struct, if something needs to stay/go among members or requires rename etc please let know.
We're looking at collapse of TranslationRequest
and ResponseOptions
. I'm deferring collapse here to avoid editing bindings.
Well, was easy deleting a bunch of lines of code to get things to work.
Please treat this as an explicit request to expedite merge @abhi-agg, @XapaJIaMnu, @kpu.
|
FREE, | ||
|
||
/// An expensive quality-score that runs additional computations to determine | ||
/// quality of an output. | ||
EXPENSIVE |
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.
Just adding that we probably would want to expose these scores at different text granularity as well. e.g. Word
level, Sentence
level. But we can update this enum later once we do more experimentation 👍
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
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 to me as well 👍
(WIP Rework of the
Request -> Response
transition process)Over here we're not in the small PR making business, we're in moving source from complete to more complete stages business, leaving intermediates stable.
To simplify diff - merge #85 which provides essential bugfixes for what would previously be undefined behaviour, followed by #79 which requires the bugfixes and eliminates the usage of history.
(Edit: This is untangled now)
Incorporating both the above, what this PR does is abstract Request -> Response transition using ResponseBuilder.
There are the last few changes that can be moved to a separate collapse PR. behind this, will do by git-magic if required. The structures operated are documented as edits happen, so this PR also includes documentation changes.
We have big PR, yet again.