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.

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

Subtasks for macro-benchmarking: count() update #50

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

saleha-muzammil
Copy link
Contributor

[ ] Change provenance_collectors.py -> PROBE to have a count() function. count() should transcribe and dump the provenance log. It should import probe_py.generated.parser. We should convert the Ops to ProvOperation, and return a tuple of them from count().

@charmoniumQ please lmk if i am on the right track or not since was unsure. I had a confusion regarding doing transcribe in the count() as I think that it would require PROBE_DIR as well ?

Comment on lines 58 to 63
ProvOperation(
type=op.type,
target0=op.target0,
target1=op.target1,
args=op.args
)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We will switch on the type of op.data. All of our ops so far have zero or one targets, the args can be left blank.

@charmoniumQ charmoniumQ marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2024 16:29
@saleha-muzammil saleha-muzammil changed the title Subtasks for macro-benchmarking Subtasks for macro-benchmarking: count() update Aug 21, 2024
@saleha-muzammil saleha-muzammil marked this pull request as ready for review August 21, 2024 15:25
@charmoniumQ
Copy link
Owner

So were you able to test this code?

@charmoniumQ charmoniumQ marked this pull request as draft August 26, 2024 15:56
@charmoniumQ charmoniumQ marked this pull request as ready for review December 7, 2024 06:58
@charmoniumQ charmoniumQ marked this pull request as draft December 7, 2024 06:59
Copy link
Owner

@charmoniumQ charmoniumQ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Use ops-jsonl (#88) instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants