-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
validator logic updates #5
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
cc: @ibraheem-abe |
README.md
Outdated
git clone https://github.com/opentensor/subnet-template.git | ||
cd subnet-template |
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.
I don't think this is what we want to do for a template.
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.
could you let me know what the idea is?
asking cause the readme walks through running the miner/validator logic defined in the repo but using the previous clone/change directory commands doesnt work.
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.
Well this is a template. So it's designed to be forked and the information in it updated by the forker. Having this hard-coded will work, and that's the problem. Because it works, people will think that's correct to do rather than updating the info to the fork.
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.
gotcha! i can edit the README so that it includes the forking of the repo and then change the command to reflect that.
does that work?
validator.py
Outdated
for response in responses | ||
if response is not None | ||
] | ||
bt.logging.info(f"Successful responses: {successful_responses}") |
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.
It would be nice if we can also mention the index which corresponds to the uid of the responses.
For example, if the raw responses were: None, None, 3, None, 6
Instead of outputting simply 3, and 6, it will be nice to know the uids associated with them.
Helps easily identify which
miner is responding
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.
Updates to the Validator scoring logic and Readme