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

BUG: Fix experimental dtype slot numbers #21979

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 14, 2022
Merged

Conversation

seberg
Copy link
Member

@seberg seberg commented Jul 13, 2022

Unfortunately, I forgot to move them around when introducing ensure_canonical,
but the code relies on the order for simplicitly currently...

Which doesn't matter, just means that the DType part of the experimental ufunc
API is completely unusable in 1.23 right now.


Pretty big ooops by me, since I really thought I could tell peple in my SciPy talk that the super minimal unitdtype example will work with NumPy 1.23... And now I need this (so it will work with main only).

Unfortunately, I forgot to move them around when introducing ensure_canonical,
but the code relies on the order for simplicitly currently...

Which doesn't matter, just means that the DType part of the experimental ufunc
API is completely unusable in 1.23 right now.
@seberg
Copy link
Member Author

seberg commented Jul 13, 2022

Shows that I should move the very minimal prototype into numpy itself soon probably, but I wold prefer not to do it quite now (just due to timing really).

@mattip
Copy link
Member

mattip commented Jul 13, 2022

Maybe we could add a CI job to run the prototype against HEAD?

@seberg
Copy link
Member Author

seberg commented Jul 13, 2022

Yeah, but I need to dumb it down a bit to avoid any use of unyt, etc. (or create a similar prototype example).

@seberg
Copy link
Member Author

seberg commented Jul 13, 2022

Ah, sorry would not need it for that. Also, I just realized we have the ScaledFloat thingy. Probably, I just need to make that example use the experimental API (potentially with some trick?).

That is a bit of annoying, but it failing is pretty meaningless, if it wasn't for the fact that I would like to reference a working version on Friday morning :).

@mattip
Copy link
Member

mattip commented Jul 14, 2022

3.11-dev is failing on a typing error, @BvB93 any thoughts? That is not the fault of this PR.

@mattip
Copy link
Member

mattip commented Jul 14, 2022

Maybe it is a regression with the recently released 3.11b4?

@BvB93
Copy link
Member

BvB93 commented Jul 14, 2022

Maybe it is a regression with the recently released 3.11b4?

Seems like python/cpython#93754 is the culprit, I'll create a PR in a bit.

@BvB93
Copy link
Member

BvB93 commented Jul 14, 2022

Right, a PR for the 3.11b4 regression has been created: #21982

@mattip mattip merged commit 93b7320 into numpy:main Jul 14, 2022
@mattip
Copy link
Member

mattip commented Jul 14, 2022

Thanks @seberg for both the PR and for providing a nice platform to discover beta-4 incompatibilities :)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants