-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Load index #59
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Load index #59
Conversation
Co-authored-by: John Giorgi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: John Giorgi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: John Giorgi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: John Giorgi <[email protected]>
Thanks for the input @JohnGiorgi, is there anything else required? |
Co-authored-by: John Giorgi <[email protected]>
@Anwesh1 Looks good. One thing, I changed the base branch from
|
Sure, sounds good. Thanks, @JohnGiorgi. |
@Anwesh1 Actually, it would be great if we could add a test to see if the server works as expected when an index is loaded from disk. Think you can handle that or would you rather I take it? |
I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Do you think you could show me sometime? |
@Anwesh1 No problem, it is rather complicated so I will take it. It would be good (for this project and beyond) to start getting familiar with pytest, though. They have great documentation, and there are lots of tutorials online. Unit testing is an important part of software engineering and pytest is the tool of choice of unit testing python code. |
Okay sounds good, I'll definitely do that. Sure go ahead and tackle it when you can and then feel free to merge |
Importing @jvwong code from |
@Anwesh1 Can you do the copy and paste in a new (fresh) branch off of |
Overview
I think this allows users to pass in a file path for an already existing index on their drive.
I tried testing it by having the program write the index to a file and on the next run I passed in the file path for that file and it seemed to work. When it loaded from an index I could see the significant speed boost instead of the original method.
Let me know if you guys see any issues, otherwise, we can merge.
PS: There are 2 commits, the first one has all the code updates, the second one was a minor
flake8
fix.Closes
Closes #56.