Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Do not skip sacremoses tokenizer test #782

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 18, 2020
Merged

Do not skip sacremoses tokenizer test #782

merged 1 commit into from
May 18, 2020

Conversation

mthrok
Copy link
Contributor

@mthrok mthrok commented May 18, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Seems like the issue had been resolved. https://github.com/alvations/sacremoses/issues/61

Test run time: ~= 0.4 second.

@mthrok mthrok changed the title Remove slow from sacremoses Do not skip sacremoses tokenizer test May 18, 2020
@mthrok mthrok marked this pull request as ready for review May 18, 2020 19:24
zhangguanheng66
zhangguanheng66 approved these changes May 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@zhangguanheng66 zhangguanheng66 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeap.

@mthrok mthrok merged commit 00e793f into pytorch:master May 18, 2020
@mthrok
Copy link
Contributor Author

mthrok commented May 18, 2020

thanks!

@mthrok mthrok deleted the remove-slow-sacremoses branch May 18, 2020 19:28
@mthrok mthrok restored the remove-slow-sacremoses branch May 18, 2020 19:29
@mthrok mthrok deleted the remove-slow-sacremoses branch May 18, 2020 19:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@zhangguanheng66 zhangguanheng66 zhangguanheng66 approved these changes

@cpuhrsch cpuhrsch Awaiting requested review from cpuhrsch

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
2 participants
@mthrok @zhangguanheng66