[ENH] early return for deep_equals in case of object identity#568
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #568 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.07% 84.12% -0.95%
==========================================
Files 45 52 +7
Lines 3015 3963 +948
==========================================
+ Hits 2565 3334 +769
- Misses 450 629 +179 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
deep_equals in case of object identity
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This fixes the following problem
this fails since the
QuantileLossoverwrites__eq__and__ne__. I simulate this in a test that fails on main as well, in order to not introduce another heavy dependency.Reference Issues/PRs
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
Does your contribution introduce a new dependency? If yes, which one?
What should a reviewer concentrate their feedback on?
Any other comments?
PR checklist
For all contributions
the PR topic is related to enhancement, CI/CD, maintenance, documentation, or a bug.
For code contributions
[ ] Appropriate docstrings have been added (see documentation standards)[ ] New public functionality has been added to the API Reference