Formula setup hash #98
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
warpfork
force-pushed
the
formula-setup-hash
branch
from
4e1a64d
to
7655d89
Compare
Reasoning and purpose is as already described in the docs attached to the method. This rename should reduce confusion and leaves the air clearer for when we add other hash functions that produce other kinds of useful index/ID. Signed-off-by: Eric Myhre <hash@exultant.us>
warpfork
force-pushed
the
formula-setup-hash
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d13650b
to
82cf61c
Compare
…r to this concept. This is being removed because it's not exactly the correct place for that concern, and worse, leaving the mentions there has proved very misleading. Whether or not an output is consistent doesn't have much to do with how we run things. Something should check that, sure; but how, and against what matrix you want to check it is a question that has more than one correct answer, and it *definitely* doesn't have anything to do with how we run something. The Formula.SetupHash is a related concept, despite not actual covering results -- or perhaps because it specifically DOES NOT cover results, but DOES cover output slot specifications. Most docs previously refering to the conjecture now make more sense referring to the SetupHash instead. There is no function which currently computes a Formula.ResultsHash, which sounds like a function that would make more sense to concern itself with conjectures. This doesn't exist largely because downstreams (namely, reppl, which is an example of a practical tool that's stitching things together and really cares about memoizing, etc) have so far been getting along fine by looking at each line of result hash separately. In other words, there's no reason this function doens't exist; just that it hasn't been needed yet. If we define one (and to be clear: it will not replace SetupHash; it will be ADifferentHash), then a conjecture-like field may make an appearance again, but until that time, removing it seems best. Signed-off-by: Eric Myhre <hash@exultant.us>
warpfork
force-pushed
the
formula-setup-hash
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d0785f1
to
7655d89
Compare
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.
Rename
Formula.HashtoFormula.SetupHashto clarify what it is, why it does what it does, and that it does not include coverage of all fields.Update many docs that previously referred to a 'conjecture' field, and remove that field, as part of a clarification sweep. Those docs now make references to SetupHash where appropriate (and read much better as a result, imo).