Fix issue 519: Improved connection parameter skipping with connection rule all_to_all #568

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Dec 8, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@golosio
Contributor

golosio commented Nov 28, 2016

This PR fixes issue 519: #519
in conn_builder.cpp, lines as:

  for ( GIDCollection::const_iterator sgid = sources_->begin();
        sgid != sources_->end();
        ++sgid )
    skip_conn_parameter_( tid );

have been replaced by passing the number of source neurons as second argument of the call to skip_conn_parameter.
I also wrote an MPI test for connection with array parameters and connection rule all_to_all.

@golosio

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@golosio

golosio Nov 28, 2016

Contributor

I propose @hannahbos and @heplesser as reviewers.

Contributor

golosio commented Nov 28, 2016

I propose @hannahbos and @heplesser as reviewers.

@golosio

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@golosio

golosio Nov 28, 2016

Contributor

@heplesser why this PR is not going to travis? I do not understand what does it mean this branch has a conflict. Does it mean that there was some modification of conn_builder.cpp that I did not pull before doing my changes?

Contributor

golosio commented Nov 28, 2016

@heplesser why this PR is not going to travis? I do not understand what does it mean this branch has a conflict. Does it mean that there was some modification of conn_builder.cpp that I did not pull before doing my changes?

@heplesser heplesser changed the title from Fix issue 519: Improved skip connection parameters with connection rule all_to_all to Fix issue 519: Improved connection parameter skipping with connection rule all_to_all Nov 28, 2016

@heplesser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heplesser

heplesser Nov 29, 2016

Contributor

@golosio Curious that it didn't go to Travis. It may be because the title contained "skip", but I thought one had to add [skip ci] to the title to suppress Travis checks.

@lekshmideepu Do you have any idea what is going on?

Contributor

heplesser commented Nov 29, 2016

@golosio Curious that it didn't go to Travis. It may be because the title contained "skip", but I thought one had to add [skip ci] to the title to suppress Travis checks.

@lekshmideepu Do you have any idea what is going on?

@heplesser

Looks good. 👍

@golosio

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@golosio

golosio Nov 29, 2016

Contributor

@heplesser Indeed the file conn_builder.cpp has been modified while I was working on it, so there was a conflict. Now I got the last version of the file and I applied the same changes on this file. Everything should be ok now.

Contributor

golosio commented Nov 29, 2016

@heplesser Indeed the file conn_builder.cpp has been modified while I was working on it, so there was a conflict. Now I got the last version of the file and I applied the same changes on this file. Everything should be ok now.

@hannahbos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hannahbos

hannahbos Dec 7, 2016

Thanks for improving this. 👍

Thanks for improving this. 👍

@heplesser heplesser merged commit c2b0a81 into nest:master Dec 8, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment