Adding TaskSeq.chunkBySize#265
Closed
gfix wants to merge 7 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Member
|
Hey @gfix, thanks for taking a stab at this. I see that some test builds are failing. Are you blocked and do you want me to take over, or are you planning on continuing the task? I think it would be a great addition! |
Author
|
Sorry, I didn't see you reply before now! I upgraded to actions/upload-artifact action from the deprecated v3 to v4 and the tests are running fine now. However, Fantomas complains that |
Contributor
|
I will close this and ask an agent to reimplement based on spec |
Closed
This was referenced Mar 7, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I needed
TaskSeq.chunkBySizeso I took a stab 🗡️Fixes #258
Inspired by AsyncSeq.bufferByCount and Seq.chunkBySize
I have tried to match the style and structure of the repo, but let me know if something should be moved around, or if this does not warrant the implementation in
TaskSeqInternal.fsrather than straight inTaskSeq.fs