Docs: Edit the argument documentation of n_jobs of the parallelize function#987
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #987 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 66.58% 66.58%
=======================================
Files 40 40
Lines 6057 6057
Branches 1014 1014
=======================================
Hits 4033 4033
Misses 1663 1663
Partials 361 361
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
@ilan-gold I could send a future warning but are we going to deprecate something else if we are going to replace parallelize? I feel like we should throw warnings if we will surely replace it because many functions seem to use parallelize and we might be sending annoying warnings for a long time. Maybe I can also just remove the sentence where I say n_jobs will be removed in the future and just mention that it us to numba ultimately how many cores will be utilized. |
ilan-gold
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say this looks ok given the uncertainty, which can hopefully be resolved, and with the caveat that I don't fully understand why we're using two different parallelization frameworks (numba + joblib or whatever parallelize uses).
|
@ilan-gold I also don't understand, I think @Intron7 had an opinion on the |
Related: #957
Description
Following the discussion in #984 (comment) I modified the docs. I also wrote that this argument will be removed in the future based on our conversations but I am not sure about that.
If that is correct I will create an issue titled:
Reconsidering usage of paralellizeor something like that