(fixing the extra bugs right now - should be done soon)

I've changed _HookFunctionProtocol for the tensor parameter to take in Union[torch.Tensor, Tuple[torch.Tensor, ...]], because some new code was passing in tuples of tensors into full_hook (i think as part of hooked SAE)? not sure if this is bad or not

added assertion statements to deal with some of these issues - though, I'm recalling that alan sent a message here about using if statements instead of assertions. is that important for our purpose (and should I go through and change all instances?)

however, I'm kind of confused on how to deal with this recurring issues. we're running into some error on calls to isinstance(names_filter, Callable). i cannot figure out what is going on here, and some google searches indicate this might be a bug with the library? need some help here

^ Edit: nevermind, i think i figured it out, I've replaced those with callable(names_filter)

I saw that you merged main into your branch. We are actually going to be targeting dev as this will either be worked into our 2.0 release, or it will come quickly after that. I don't think there will be any new issues caused by the branch difference, but if you may want to update your branch to dev, that would probably be a good idea.
Also, for the future, if the branch you submit is named something other than main or dev, I can actually merge the most recent origin branch into your PR without bothering you. Not a big deal by any means, but it might just save you sometime in the future.

For the asserts, from a personal preference, I do prefer having errors being checked with an if, and then thrown. Assert is for testing. It really should only be used in testing. It is pretty common to use it in the research world, but throwing errors is typically the preferred way to handle things. It allows you to be specific with your errors, and it's a lot easier to read when glancing at the code. You have to be fairly vigilant to see an assert on what is most of the time a single line as opposed to an if where there's a pretty deliberate message visible in an error.
That being said, this code base is filled with places where people have asserted various bits of logic. Someone needs to go through the whole code base, and replace all of these asserts with ifs at some point. That in itself will be a project. If you have the time to change the ones you have added, then I would very much appreciate it. However, if we close out this PR, and we add a handful more asserts to the codebase, I don't really see that as a big deal. Maybe we are adding 2-3% more work to the eventual project of changing them everywhere.
The way I see it is that you have been waiting to get this change into the code base for over 5 months. If you have the time to change them, then that's great, but I am not going to require that you spend the time to do that after all of this time when you are basically following the existing style.

For Hooked SAE stuff, don't worry about that. We are removing that in 2.0 in favor of sending people over to SAELens. If you want to wait until tomorrow, I can have it removed, so you can merge agains the pending 2.0 with it about 98% ready for release.

Okay sounds good, I can wait until the HookedSAE gets removed and then I'll make these changes

Everything pending for 2.0 is in the dev branch. If you want to just update to that branch, you should be ready to wrap this up. We are at the moment just waiting for something to be added to another project, but the actual 2.0 is going to change very little before release.

I'll have the hooked SAE stuff removed tomorrow, but you can just ignore it if it's still there.

I reverted the change to _HookFunctionProtocol and moved up the if statement.

I think I'm being a git noob herem but I can't figure out how to merge the dev branch into this, all I can do is merge main into it

Someone needs to go through the whole code base, and replace all of these asserts with ifs at some point. That in itself will be a project. If you have the time to change the ones you have added, then I would very much appreciate it. However, if we close out this PR, and we add a handful more asserts to the codebase, I don't really see that as a big deal. Maybe we are adding 2-3% more work to the eventual project of changing them everywhere.

I left the other ones alone for now, I want to get this PR done first. I might be able to do a second pass-through and clean them all up down the line.

If you can rename your pr branch, I can get dev merged into your branch, and wrap up the last minute details on this.

did that, thanks