-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 578
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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Improved pip package structure #182
Conversation
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.
Very happy to see this proposal!
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.
Very happy to see this proposal as well.
I think lazy loading is a good option. It is complicated by our current
practice of testing which mixes cross-package integration tests with the
rest. Otherwise it would not be unclean enough to bother me.
|
@annarev : is this ready for design review? |
Yes, it is ready for design review. There are still some things I wanted to test out following comments (unfortunately haven't gotten around to it). But it should be ok to have design review at this point. |
@martinwicke Do you have an example in mind when an integration test would fail because we use lazy-loading as opposed to adding tensorflow_core package? Would these cases be resolved once estimator just depends on public APIs? I am guessing we can split up the tests if they still cause an issue then. |
For tests which naturally live in Estimator, yes, they should be fine. If
the dependency tree is a real tree without cycles, then putting integration
tests in the highest spot needed to see all dependencies for the test will
make this clean, independent of lazy loading.
|
Ideally it should be a tree except the lazy-loaded edges. I see some |
Note that |
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.
Very happy to see this!
Co-Authored-By: Gabriel de Marmiesse <gabrieldemarmiesse@gmail.com>
…flow/community#182 PiperOrigin-RevId: 294847967 Change-Id: I327d075a2065e2ccf8ad5317882ebde14e3dc3d6
I think this can be merged as it has been already implemented |
@mihaimaruseac Do you meant that the implementation was already merged in the public repo? |
@ematejska can you go through the accepted by unmerged PRs? I think there are a few. @bhack thanks for pinging these. |
…flow/community#182 PiperOrigin-RevId: 294847967 Change-Id: I327d075a2065e2ccf8ad5317882ebde14e3dc3d6
Comment period is open until 2019-11-13
Improved pip package structure
Objective
We propose to simplify TensorFlow pip package structure to enable IDE features such as autocomplete, jump-to-definition and quick-documentation.