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

Added RFC for Flow Graph Helper Functions #1648

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vossmjp
Copy link
Contributor

@vossmjp vossmjp commented Feb 21, 2025

Description

This adds the description of an already existing experimental feature to the rfcs/experimental directory. The content should be reviewed for accuracy in describing the feature and for the proposed exit criteria.

Fixes # - issue number(s) if exists

Type of change

Choose one or multiple, leave empty if none of the other choices apply

Add a respective label(s) to PR if you have permissions

  • bug fix - change that fixes an issue
  • new feature - change that adds functionality
  • tests - change in tests
  • infrastructure - change in infrastructure and CI
  • documentation - documentation update

Tests

  • added - required for new features and some bug fixes
  • not needed

Documentation

  • updated in # - add PR number
  • needs to be updated
  • not needed

Breaks backward compatibility

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unknown

Notify the following users

List users with @ to send notifications

Other information

* Collecting feedback on user experience confirming the choices made on the open questions and limitations:
* Limitation that constructors can be used to set predecessors or successors but not both.
* The multiport node rule that makes edges from each node in the set to the corresponding port.
* The corresponding oneTBB specification update should be done backed by the user feedback provided.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With regard to the specification update, I would explicitly ask the following questions:

  • Should we keep the "node set" type unspecified or define it properly?
  • Should the ordering (preceding/following) become the property of a node set?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants