Refactor benchmark metric classes to increase code sharing #3182
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D67254165 |
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3182 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.83% 95.83%
=======================================
Files 505 505
Lines 51130 51134 +4
=======================================
+ Hits 49002 49006 +4
Misses 2128 2128 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D67254165 |
esantorella
force-pushed
the
export-D67254165
branch
from
8430d52 to
d40e8d5
Compare
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D67254165 |
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Differential Revision: D67254165
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Reviewed By: Balandat Differential Revision: D67254165
esantorella
force-pushed
the
export-D67254165
branch
from
d40e8d5 to
97b66cb
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D67254165 |
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Reviewed By: Balandat Differential Revision: D67254165
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2024
…3182) Summary: **Context**: The two benchmark metric classes, `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric`, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a common `BenchmarkMetric` class, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue in `BenchmarkMapMetric`. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running. Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and `available_while_running` is a class method. **This diff**: * Introduces a base class `BenchmarkMetricBase`, consolidates logic into it, and makes `BenchmarkMetric` and `BenchmarkMapMetric` inherit from it `BenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_data` may appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes. Reviewed By: Balandat Differential Revision: D67254165
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D67254165 |
|
This pull request has been merged in c5e038a. |
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.
Summary:
Context: The two benchmark metric classes,
BenchmarkMetricandBenchmarkMapMetric, share some code that is currently duplicated. I initially didn't want to have them inherit from a commonBenchmarkMetricclass, since this would cause a potential diamond inheritance issue inBenchmarkMapMetric. However, I don't see this issue as very risky, and introducing a base class will make it easy to add classes we don't currently have: a non-Map metric that is available while running, and a Map metric that is not available while running.Note that there are exactly four possible benchmark metric classes (map data vs. not, available while running vs. not) and these cannot be consolidated into fewer classes, since metrics must inherit from MapMetric if and only if they produce MapData, and
available_while_runningis a class method.This diff:
BenchmarkMetricBase, consolidates logic into it, and makesBenchmarkMetricandBenchmarkMapMetricinherit from itBenchmarkMetricBase.fetch_trial_datamay appear unnecessarily complex for the two classes we have now, but will not require any changes to add two more classes.Differential Revision: D67254165