Add parallel array enumerator#705
Merged
Merged
Conversation
akinshonibare
approved these changes
May 6, 2026
akinshonibare
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, do we enqueue no-op children, i.e if the instances > array.size or array is empty
Contributor
Author
We do. I'm not sure if it's worth guarding against that. A no-op job is pretty harmless. |
philippeboyd
approved these changes
May 6, 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What and why?
This PR adds a parallel array enumerator that builds on the foundation laid in #702.
While it's not complex, getting the logic exactly right so each instance handles roughly the same number of elements and no elements are double-processed or missed is a bit tricky. That's why it's useful for this to live in the gem, instead of every user having to rebuild it.