-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26.8k
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
Fixed inconsistency in several fast tokenizers #26561
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.
Thanks a lot for these changes! Let's add a small test in the test_tokenization_common 😉
I changed the test_build_inputs_with_special_tokens to test this edge case :) |
Thanks 😉 |
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 good thanks, I would just like 1 hard coded expected value, otherwise if both are broken we are not testing anything! Thanks for the fix
Can you give me some guidance on how to do this? |
Oups my bad on this one! |
Fixed case where behavior of BertTokenizer and BertTokenizerFast is different.
An empty list will be evaluated to
False
but not tois None
.(I mistakenly closed my first merge request)
Fixes #26123
Before submitting
Pull Request section?
to it if that's the case.
documentation guidelines, and
here are tips on formatting docstrings.
Who can review?
Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.
@ArthurZucker