Repository navigation
Save dtype in phase_shift kwargs - #4886
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Galen Lynch <galen@galenlynch.com>
Contributor
|
Yeah probably best peeled off. Thanks for doing that! |
JoeZiminski
approved these changes
Oct 21, 2026
JoeZiminski
left a comment
JoeZiminski
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM good spot both 🎉
alejoe91
approved these changes
Oct 21, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I am reviewing #4563 by @galenlynch and I noticed that it also fixes a bug on main:
phase_shiftdoes not storedtypein its kwargs. A recording built withdtype="float32"comes back with the parent dtype when it is reloaded from its dict, andsavewithspawnworkers (the default on macOS and Windows) writes values rounded to integers because the workers rebuild the recording from that dict.This PR peels that fix off from #4563 as that PR has been waiting for a while and this is something we can merge independently. The fix is @galenlynch's, so the commit credits him as co-author. I also added a test that fails on main.