Skip to content

Conversation

@akaitsuki-ii
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Changes

Hello @akaitsuki-ii, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a minor refactoring to the flux_dit_fbcache.py file. The primary objective is to enhance code readability and maintainability by standardizing a parameter name within the from_state_dict function, making its intent more explicit.

Highlights

  • Parameter Renaming: Renamed the fb_cache_relative_l1_threshold parameter to relative_l1_threshold within the from_state_dict function in flux_dit_fbcache.py. This change improves clarity and consistency in the parameter naming.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a TypeError in FluxDiTFBCache.from_state_dict by aligning the parameter name for the L1 threshold with the class constructor. This is a crucial correctness fix. I've added one minor suggestion to improve maintainability by replacing a magic number with a named constant.

in_channel: int = 64,
attn_kwargs: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None,
fb_cache_relative_l1_threshold: float = 0.05,
relative_l1_threshold: float = 0.05,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The default value 0.05 is a magic number. To improve readability and maintainability, it's better to define this as a named constant at the module or class level.

For example, you could define it at the module level:

DEFAULT_RELATIVE_L1_THRESHOLD = 0.05

class FluxDiTFBCache(FluxDiT):
    # ...

This constant could then be used here and in the __init__ method (line 27) for consistency. While the __init__ method is outside this diff, making this change consistently would be ideal.

@akaitsuki-ii akaitsuki-ii merged commit 12cc587 into main Jul 24, 2025
@akaitsuki-ii akaitsuki-ii deleted the fix branch July 24, 2025 09:01
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.

3 participants