-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
API: handle NaN as min/max stats in evaluators #2069
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Thanks for noticing this. Instead of having this paragraph everywhere, can we abstract this to a method like
checkNaNLowerBound
, and make this the documentation of that method?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.
Thanks for the quick review! Yeah I do realize that repeating the same comment over and over again is a bit annoying, but I wasn't sure where the right balance is. Since I'm hoping to check for
isNaN
after comparing to avoid unnecessary checking inlt
/ltEq
, the only thing I can abstract out isNaNUtil.isNaN(lower)
, that we are essentially wrapping around a wrapper; and also I guess that might not help much with readability since the actual explanation in this case will be outside of the logic flow here, so the reader will have to jump around to understand the full intention. Maybe we can shorten this comment everywhere and have the full version at the start of the class? Do you/other people have any suggestion?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.
Sorry I did not see the comment, I think it is valuable enough to abstract out the method given the amount of comments, and have something like:
I am not good at naming, you can probably come up with a better name...
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.
I don't that there is a need for an extra method that has just one method call. I'd probably do it like this:
The docs would go in the javadoc for the whole class, and each NaN check could simply refer back to it. I also moved the NaN check above the comparison to keep the logic simple: if the value is NaN, the bound is invalid.