Closed njzjz closed 3 months ago
[!WARNING]
Rate Limit Exceeded
@njzjz has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 47 minutes and 48 seconds before requesting another review.
How to resolve this issue?
After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the `@coderabbitai review` command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR. We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.How do rate limits work?
CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our [FAQ](https://coderabbit.ai/docs/faq) for further information.Commits
Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 694d50015c6a2c8aaa6586e9bdda712729fe9e0c and 7cb00b9c2ed3f20a4a23b99b3fa32cc914a4fb35.
The recent changes involve improvements across various components related to atomic models, model testing, and utility functions. These updates include additions like new methods for model classes, expanded functionalities for building neighbor lists, and the introduction of SPDX license identifiers in test modules.
Files Affected | Summary of Changes |
---|---|
deepmd/dpmodel/model/make_model.py |
- Added a new method get_ntypes to class CM for determining the number of types. |
source/tests/universal/common/backend.py source/tests/universal/dpmodel/backend.py |
- Introduced test case classes BackendTestCase and DPTestCase with extended functionalities for testing modules. |
source/tests/universal/common/cases/atomic_model/utils.py source/tests/universal/common/cases/model/utils.py |
- Added AtomicModelTestCase and ModelTestCase classes with common test cases and methods for atomic and general models, respectively. |
source/tests/universal/pt/backend.py |
- Introduced PTTestCase class for testing PyTorch modules with methods for module scripting, deserialization, and JIT testing. |
Objective | Addressed | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Test serialization & deserialization (#3501) | ✅ | |
Test get_sel , get_type , etc. for models (#3517) |
❓ | The changes focus on general model testing functionalities; it's unclear if specific tests for get_sel , get_type , etc., have been added. |
Test JIT interface for all models (#3518) | ✅ |
The recent code changes align well with the objectives outlined in the linked issues, particularly in enhancing serialization/deserialization tests and ensuring JIT interface testing for all models. However, the specific testing for get_sel
, get_type
, and similar functions needs further verification for clarity.
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?
Attention: Patch coverage is 94.44444%
with 1 line
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 74.42%. Comparing base (
d62a41f
) to head (7cb00b9
). Report is 142 commits behind head on devel.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
deepmd/dpmodel/utils/nlist.py | 88.88% | 1 Missing :warning: |
:exclamation: There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (d62a41f) and HEAD (7cb00b9). Click for more details.
HEAD has 20 uploads less than BASE
| Flag | BASE (d62a41f) | HEAD (7cb00b9) | |------|------|------| ||28|8|
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
As @wanghan-iapcm said, if we want to add a test, such as permutation invariance, the standard way is to add a common test method in
AtomicModelTestCase
right?
- If one model has different behavior to test a common test method, such as
forward_lower
test for SpinModel, it's expected to overwrite the method in SpinModel's test case. Is it right?
You are correct.
Fix #3501. Fix #3517. Fix #3518.
Summary by CodeRabbit