Add assert_column_memory_*
#9882
Conversation
isVoid
added
improvement
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## branch-22.04 #9882 +/- ##
=============================================
Coverage 10.50% 10.50%
=============================================
Files 126 127 +1
Lines 21218 21215 -3
=============================================
Hits 2228 2228
+ Misses 18990 18987 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
This PR has been labeled |
python/cudf/cudf/testing/_utils.py
Outdated
| def assert_column_memory_eq( | ||
| lhs: cudf.core.column.ColumnBase, rhs: cudf.core.column.ColumnBase | ||
| ): | ||
| assert lhs.base_data_ptr == rhs.base_data_ptr | ||
| assert lhs.base_mask_ptr == rhs.base_mask_ptr | ||
| for lhs_child, rhs_child in zip(lhs.base_children, rhs.base_children): | ||
| assert_column_memory_eq(lhs_child, rhs_child) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't this also return True for columns that have the same base pointers but different sizes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right.. Is adding check for size sufficient?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes - an additional check for size should be enough.
|
I'm wondering.. is it possible for two columns locating on different nodes in a multi-node setup to have the same memory address but are in fact two separate objects? cc @shwina |
|
Probably? But I don't think this API should be concerned with that scenario. |
|
Moved this over to the 22.04 project board. Please retarget when you have a chance :) |
…ent/assert_column_memory_equal
|
rerun tests |
|
This PR has been labeled |
…ent/assert_column_memory_equal
…ent/assert_column_memory_equal
|
@gpucibot merge |
This PR refactors
test_index.py::test_index_copy_deepand adds test utility functionassert_column_memory_eqandassert_column_memory_ne, which tests if two cudf columns possess (or not possess) the same piece of memory.