Skip to content
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

A better explanation for change in differentials #294

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

itamarst
Copy link
Contributor

@itamarst itamarst commented May 26, 2023

An example of how to fix #293

To complete:

  • @jonhoo's signoff or suggestion for alternatives
  • Tests

@itamarst
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any thoughts on this approach?

Comment on lines +637 to +638
(0, _) => "all newly added".to_string(),
(_, 0) => "were all removed".to_string(),
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if these labels still make sense if negate_differentials is on.

} else {
(new as f64 / old as f64, "old")
};
format!(" = {ratio:.3} × {compared_to} {}", opt.count_name)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I follow the phrasing here. If, for example, we spend 2x as many samples in some frame, this will look like (I think):

= 2 × old cycles

Which I think is maybe overly concise. It doesn't include the function name (is that printed elsewhere?), and the old or new sample counts. I think we'll want to include at least the function name and one of the two absolute numbers. I'm also not sure if "old" and "new" are understandable labels in this instance (esp. for negate_differentials) — they may even be unnecessary. I think "2×cycles" may actually be sufficient.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Differential output tooltips are confusing
3 participants