Skip to content

Conversation

@eriknw
Copy link
Contributor

@eriknw eriknw commented Feb 14, 2025

This PR goes with networkx/networkx#7760 to allow e.g. nx.Graph() or nx.Graph(backend="cugraph") to create nxcg.Graph.

Graphs created in this way are networkx-compatible graphs by default. If the user is running in "strict", GPU-only mode by setting nx.config.backends.cugraph.use_compat_graphs to False, then Cuda Graphs will be returned.

Also, I removed yesqa pre-commit hook, which is unnecessary b/c this is handled by ruff via RUF100. yesqa could occasionally be a minor nuisance by removing a noqa understood by ruff (as was happening in earlier commits of this PR).

Despite the "WIP" / "Draft" labels, this is more-or-less ready for review and is awaiting networkx/networkx#7760 (which is also ready for review).

@eriknw eriknw added improvement Improves an existing functionality non-breaking Introduces a non-breaking change labels Feb 14, 2025
@eriknw eriknw requested a review from a team as a code owner February 14, 2025 03:17
@eriknw eriknw requested a review from gforsyth February 14, 2025 03:17
@eriknw eriknw marked this pull request as draft February 14, 2025 03:17
@copy-pr-bot
Copy link

copy-pr-bot bot commented Feb 14, 2025

Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

@eriknw eriknw changed the base branch from branch-25.04 to branch-25.06 May 6, 2025 01:16
@eriknw eriknw changed the base branch from branch-25.06 to branch-25.12 October 6, 2025 20:46
@eriknw eriknw marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2025 19:06
@eriknw eriknw changed the title WIP: dispatch for e.g. nx.Graph(backend="cugraph") dispatch for e.g. nx.Graph(backend="cugraph") Oct 17, 2025
@eriknw
Copy link
Contributor Author

eriknw commented Oct 17, 2025

networkx/networkx#7760 is now merged, so this PR is ready for review (CC @rlratzel).

@rlratzel
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like our CI check to ensure >0% code coverage is now failing so I'll need to look into that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

improvement Improves an existing functionality non-breaking Introduces a non-breaking change

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants