Explicit method for adding boundaries #13
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR adds an additional method to add boundaries without changing current behavior.
It's very similar to the existing methods but can be invoked manually. Also, it allows to explicitly specify the number of cpus in the multiprocessing step. In our case, we get 4x faster conversion times by using
cpu_num<<multiprocessing.cpu_count()since IPC is very expensive and our system has many cores. Note that we also untangle the conversion ofcocoGtandcocoDtby addingget_boundaryas an argument toloadResinstead of following what was done incocoGt. This actually does change the current behavior slightly but should be of no concern sinceCOCOevalwill run any missing conversion anyway. On the other hand, the user gains more flexibility and control of when to run the conversion!The PR also includes as small fix for the deprecation warning np.float -> float
Let me know what you think :)
Best,
Johannes