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

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (dev@72690a0). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

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

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 72690a0...f16efd7. Read the comment docs.

[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.202132.xyz%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.202132.xyz%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.202132.xyz%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