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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CLI: add stricter automatic checks to
pt-to-tf
#17588CLI: add stricter automatic checks to
pt-to-tf
#17588Changes from 4 commits
4aaa263
7a58886
ada8865
692c19e
52c98ae
c9b78ac
8a9d873
d6612ce
c35417f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
compare_pt_tf_values
..?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.
I feel that we will need to have something like
f"{root_name}.{pt_item}"
, i.e. to include some kind of separator, so the result names will be more readable.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.
There is no need, the names are not nested (at the moment). As it is structured, it will print the variable as we would write on a python terminal to get it, so we can copy-paste it for further inspection -- e.g.
past_key_values[0][2]
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.
compare_pt_tf_values
..?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.
compare_pt_tf_values
馃槃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.
Will rename to
_compare_pt_tf_models
(to avoid a name clash, as Matt mentioned)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.
The function is called as
compare_pt_tf_models
here, but as @ydshieh mentioned it's defined ascompate_pt_tf_models
, so this bit will probably crash.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.
It was my bad, my comment should be
compate_pt_tf_values
-->compare_pt_tf_values
.Nothing wrong about
compare_pt_tf_models
.