CV2-5247-support-yake-keyword-extraction-for-chinese #112
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
ahmednasserswe
requested review from
DGaffney,
computermacgyver and
skyemeedan
as code owners
skyemeedan
requested changes
Sep 24, 2024
skyemeedan
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2024
DGaffney
reviewed
Sep 26, 2024
|
One extremely minor note otherwise good to go! |
DGaffney
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2024
…or language == 'zh' or language == 'zh-TW'` to `if language[:2]=="zh"`
computermacgyver
deleted the
CV2-5247-support-yake-keyword-extraction-for-chinese
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
using jieba to segment mandarin text
Reference: CV2-5247 and CV2-4909
How has this been tested?
Has it been tested locally? Are there automated tests?
locally. will add automated tests as well.
Are there any external dependencies?
Are there changes required in sysops terraform for this feature or fix?
Have you considered secure coding practices when writing this code?
Please list any security concerns that may be relevant.