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

neuralcoref: init at 4.0 #90252

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

ConradMearns
Copy link
Contributor

@ConradMearns ConradMearns commented Jun 13, 2020

Motivation for this change

Add the neuralcoref module to python3Packages

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

I have not yet "Tested execution of all binary files" by running the module in Python yet. Been overloaded at work 🙃

Let me know if there's anything I can improve or should change, thanks!

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

when updating a branch, please use rebase. E.g. git pull -r .. ... . This helps keep the git history cleaner.

description = "Neuralcoref: Coreference Resolution in spaCy with Neural Networks";
homepage = "https://github.com/huggingface/neuralcoref";
license = licenses.mit;
maintainers = with maintainers; [ conradmearns ];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please create a separate commit that adds you to maintainers.nix. Look at 261912e as an example

maintainers: add <name>

@@ -7426,6 +7426,8 @@ in {

rxv = callPackage ../development/python-modules/rxv { };

neuralcoref = callPackage ../development/python-modules/neuralcoref {};
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please attempt to sort this

Comment on lines +30 to +33
doCheck = false;
# checkPhase = ''
# ${python.interpreter} -m pytest spacy/tests --vectors --models --slow
# '';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are no tests included. Please try to checkout from source and check if they have unit tests, and try to run them. Unit tests give a good indication that they package has a high degree of validity and correctness given the python package set.

If tests are not available, then please use pythonImportsCheck to import the most important modules. This isn't as good as unit tests, but will usually give a good indication of run-time errors.

@ConradMearns
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jonringer, sorry for the mess and late reply, I only partially know what I am doing.

It may take me a while to be ready to create tests for this, in the meantime I will add the maintainer entry via a separate package PR

Should I and revert or change the git history to rebase? I'm assuming I would need to do this anyway to fix the mess with the maintainer entry, but I don't know how to do this yet.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 3, 2021

I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jun 3, 2021
@stale stale bot removed the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jun 12, 2023
@abathur
Copy link
Member

abathur commented Aug 27, 2023

@ConradMearns Are you still interested in pursuing this? I see you subsequently submitted and maintain the obsidian package, so maybe the places where this gummed up are more tractable now?

@abathur
Copy link
Member

abathur commented Sep 4, 2023

Tentatively closing. Happy to reopen if you want to pursue it.

@abathur abathur closed this Sep 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants