-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 415
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
Fix TransformedPosterior missing batch shape error in _update_base_samples #1625
Conversation
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D42421494 |
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D42421494 |
…mples (pytorch#1625) Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#1625 See pytorch#1623. This is the only use case for `posterior.batch_shape`, so fixing it locally makes sense to me. Differential Revision: D42421494 fbshipit-source-id: 6de08cf0aee948a29f8e128cbded850e2d507608
128b5be
to
70f0d8f
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1625 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 154 154
Lines 13776 13778 +2
=========================================
+ Hits 13776 13778 +2
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks for the fix
IIDNormalSampler(sample_shape=torch.Size([2])), | ||
IIDNormalSampler(sample_shape=torch.Size([2])), | ||
) | ||
# This calls _set_sampler which would previously fail. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
previously w.r.t to what? This PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe let's update the comment with what the test does specifically rather than saying "previously"? The context will get lost.
…mples (pytorch#1625) Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#1625 See pytorch#1623. This is the only use case for `posterior.batch_shape`, so fixing it locally makes sense to me. Reviewed By: Balandat Differential Revision: D42421494 fbshipit-source-id: 2f6afc41c573419e9aa979f34036b7e30a6802d4
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D42421494 |
70f0d8f
to
83e07d6
Compare
This pull request has been merged in 3596b12. |
Summary: See #1623. This is the only use case for
posterior.batch_shape
, so fixing it locally makes sense to me.Differential Revision: D42421494