Multithreaded support for apply_forest

[salbert83]

Perhaps it is better to let the client decide if they wish to use multithreading?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (dev@72690a0). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/util.jl	56.25%	7 Missing ⚠️
src/DecisionTree.jl	88.23%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/scikitlearnAPI.jl	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             dev     #176   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage       ?   89.67%           
======================================
  Files          ?       10           
  Lines          ?     1182           
  Branches       ?        0           
======================================
  Hits           ?     1060           
  Misses         ?      122           
  Partials       ?        0           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ablaom]

@OkonSamuel This replaces #175. Can you please review?

[OkonSamuel]

Perhaps it is better to let the client decide if they wish to use multithreading?

Yes. But we could always include support for that later.

[OkonSamuel]

LGTM except for some little changes

[OkonSamuel]

@salbert83 everthing is good to go. Could you just add a test for use_multithreading

[ablaom]

@salbert83 Are you willing to add a test (see comment above)?

[salbert83]

Sorry, got busy at work. Will make a unit test this weekend. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows From: Anthony Blaom, ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 1:13 AM To: ***@***.***> Cc: ***@***.***>; ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [JuliaAI/DecisionTree.jl] Multithreaded support for apply_forest (PR #176) @salbert83<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fsalbert83&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ca360f0095ae343c8c02608da60a0980a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637928540139296377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tGUY2L%2BF8u5vPmXSbDTdgedRP61XqoI0iUHG7BN88MA%3D&reserved=0> Are you willing to add a test (see comment above)? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FJuliaAI%2FDecisionTree.jl%2Fpull%2F176%23issuecomment-1178559925&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ca360f0095ae343c8c02608da60a0980a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637928540139296377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=F4nQeu0xtQUmgOzQB1d3RhaYctn%2BXBJhX0grR8jJ7Mk%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAFPIHYYPPJ3PVWDATSWCK2DVS62HRANCNFSM5ZKRCJVQ&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ca360f0095ae343c8c02608da60a0980a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637928540139296377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNvm110H22ok09np5VDrKCgM8xKMbDiy49%2F0B5XtMfo%3D&reserved=0>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[salbert83]

Any suggestion on resolving the conflict?

[ablaom]

Probably the safest suggestion is for you to try merging latest origin/dev into your local branch and then pushing the updated branch to your fork. There will be conflicts to resolve locally in the process. If you get stuck with that, or am not confident trying this, let me know and I will have a look at resolving the conflicts for you.

[ablaom]

The commit history still looking suspicious. Closing in favor of #188