-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
info & background on merge_closest()
method
#34
Comments
Yeh, to be honest, I'm not totally sure? I suspect it was commented out, because I didn't have a very robust test for it. I recall essentially wanting to create random clusters, and then testing that they were recoverable via the |
So do you think we want to:
cc @gegen07 |
Well, obviously 3 is the ideal outcome. But given I no longer have a core use case for this, I would likely find it difficult to devote the time. If @gegen07 has a use case/data set/example, I'm sure we could use that! Alternatively, we can just enable it, do the minimal test, and see if folks find it useful? For instance, the merge_closest method is really just a wrapper around the example/demo, which does indeed work. |
I found the commit where |
Ah yes, interesting. So based on the comment, it looks like there was some weirdness with merging and not getting consistent results in tests. Having said that, it looks like there's no good reason to not support this, and just allow someone to supply their own |
Putting this chunk from the
|
I'm just now realizing that |
@carsonfarmer Should we go ahead and get those moved back into |
I am curious about the history & commenting out of the
merge_closest()
method. A quick search didn't lead to any previous issues or PRs (though I likely overlooked something). Is there anything you can point me to for that, @carsonfarmer?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: