Skip to content

refactor(scalarization): move GradNorm to scalarization package#738

Closed
powerofaisinstudy-debug wants to merge 3 commits into
SimplexLab:mainfrom
powerofaisinstudy-debug:feat-gradnorm-new2
Closed

refactor(scalarization): move GradNorm to scalarization package#738
powerofaisinstudy-debug wants to merge 3 commits into
SimplexLab:mainfrom
powerofaisinstudy-debug:feat-gradnorm-new2

Conversation

@powerofaisinstudy-debug

@powerofaisinstudy-debug powerofaisinstudy-debug commented Jun 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

This PR implements the new GradNorm scalarization logic as requested. It refactors the existing structure to improve maintainability and adherence to the project's code quality standards.

Changes

  • Re-structured GradNorm scalarizer.
  • Fixed code quality issues flagged by ruff.
  • Ensured all docstrings meet project requirements.

How to verify

  • Ran pre-commit run --all-files locally.
  • Verified that all linting and formatting checks pass.

Checklist

  • My code follows the project's style guidelines.
  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • This PR is labeled correctly according to project standards.

@powerofaisinstudy-debug powerofaisinstudy-debug changed the title feat(gradnorm): implement new scalarization logic PR Title Formatter / format-title (pull_request_target) Failing after 5s Jun 14, 2026
@powerofaisinstudy-debug powerofaisinstudy-debug changed the title PR Title Formatter / format-title (pull_request_target) Failing after 5s refactor(scalarization): move GradNorm to scalarization package Jun 14, 2026
@powerofaisinstudy-debug

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Hi, I have updated the title to follow the conventional commit format and addressed the linting/formatting feedback. Could a maintainer please help apply the cc: refactor and package: scalarization labels so the CI checks can pass? Thanks for the guidance!

@PierreQuinton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Can you explain the rational behind changing the whole structure of the library? Why not instead create your own fork of our repo if you do not like the way we structured it? (Because we will certainly not changing it in that way).

You don't need to answer this question to me, I'm closing the PR, you need to answer it for yourself.

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.

2 participants