Skip to content

refactor: Remove LocalClient and use HTTPClient for local Tesseracts as well #27

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 25, 2025

Conversation

xalelax
Copy link
Contributor

@xalelax xalelax commented Feb 25, 2025

Relevant issue or PR

Fix #5

Our original strategy for using docker exec in order to operate on local Tesseracts was not a good idea; for now, we will rely on HTTP for local Tesseracts as well.

Description of changes

  • Remove LocalClient
  • Adapt tests

Testing done

Extended tests + debugger and the following script

import numpy as np
from tesseract_core import Tesseract

a = np.array([1.0, 2.0, 3.0])
b = np.array([4.0, 5.0, 6.0])

with Tesseract.from_image(image="vectoradd") as vectoradd:
    vectoradd.apply({"a": a, "b": b})

License

  • By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
  • I sign the Developer Certificate of Origin below by adding my name and email address to the Signed-off-by line.
Developer Certificate of Origin
Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

Signed-off-by: Alessandro Angioi [email protected]

@xalelax xalelax requested a review from andrinr February 25, 2025 15:09
@xalelax xalelax self-assigned this Feb 25, 2025
@xalelax xalelax linked an issue Feb 25, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Contributor

@andrinr andrinr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@dionhaefner dionhaefner merged commit ae9828b into main Feb 25, 2025
35 checks passed
@dionhaefner dionhaefner deleted the ale/remove-local-client branch February 25, 2025 15:19
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 25, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 0.00%. Comparing base (efabdef) to head (218ea92).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@    Coverage Diff     @@
##   main   #27   +/-   ##
==========================
==========================

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

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.

Python SDK is inefficient due to use of docker exec vs. REST API
3 participants