Term ooc covariance tsmm#2494
Conversation
docs: add OOC operator project plan
docs: update OOC project plan
|
Thanks for the first PR, @122Astha. I’d suggest working on the covariance implementation before opening a PR. It isn’t necessary to open PRs just to introduce failing test cases. Please configure your IDE to use tabs instead of spaces (and remove |
[MINOR] Support multi-tile OOC TSMM
…itya-amls-test-branch
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2494 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 71.37% 71.60% +0.22%
- Complexity 48749 49178 +429
============================================
Files 1571 1576 +5
Lines 188912 189988 +1076
Branches 37067 37266 +199
============================================
+ Hits 134845 136042 +1197
+ Misses 43601 43462 -139
- Partials 10466 10484 +18 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Thanks for the changes. Could you please address the codestyle and license issues (tabs instead of spaces, add license on top of each file)? Please remove |
|
Also, could you please squash and rebase to address the merge conflict? |
I added the initial OOC covariance test setup for cov(A, B). The test creates dense and sparse vector inputs, runs the covariance script once as the CP reference and once with -ooc, then compares the results.
Currently both dense and sparse OOC tests fail for the expected Week 1 reason: SystemDS generates an OOC cov instruction, but OOCInstructionParser does not support Covariance yet. The key error is: “Invalid OOC Instruction Type: Covariance”. This confirms the test-first setup is working and identifies the missing implementation/wiring.