Continue bug fix on the MIRACL#11
Merged
bpiwowar merged 2 commits intoexperimaestro:masterfrom Dec 18, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
OK it seems that we still need the |
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Sorry I add a new bug fix for the miracl dataset. Due to the
def check(...)of thetuple_constructor, the list of the field must have the same order of the original field order of the originalir-datasetdata class. So i we need to change the order from(..., text, title)to(..., title, text).Meanwhile, the MIRACL dataset convert appear twice and I think one is enough. Currently I don't know which one should be kept. If we assume that everyone is using the latest version of ir-dataset, we can put them in the earlier code all together with the other classes. Otherwise it is also ok for me to test later the
hasattr(_irds, "miracl"). If you prefer this, I can do another pull request.Thanks in advance.
PS:
DocumentWithTitleclass seems to be exactly the same as the dataclass ofTitleDocumentso maybe we can only keep one, but I don't know which one is better and whether it will affect the others, so I didn't do anything for the moment.