Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

Set non-strict export as default mode#148790

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Closed
gmagogsfm wants to merge1 commit intopytorch:mainfromgmagogsfm:export-D70228628

Conversation

@gmagogsfm
Copy link
Contributor

@gmagogsfmgmagogsfm commentedMar 7, 2025•
edited by pytorch-botbot
Loading

Summary:

  • Flip the default value of strict argument in torch.export.export from True to False
  • Update test infra to cope with the change, some of them made the assumption of strict mode as default
  • Disabled some tests that fail in non-strict mode

Test Plan: Sandcastle

Differential Revision: D70228628

cc@ezyang@gchanan

@pytorch-bot
Copy link

pytorch-botbot commentedMar 7, 2025•
edited
Loading

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results athud.pytorch.org/pr/148790

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ You can merge normally! (1 Unrelated Failure)

As of commit20b836f with merge base924a247 (image):

FLAKY - The following job failed but was likely due to flakiness present on trunk:

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Suggested change
# If user already specified strict, don't make itnon-strict
# If user already specified strict, don't make it strict

gmagogsfm reacted with thumbs up emoji
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Suggested change
# Controls tests generated in test/export/test_export_nonstrict.py
# Controls tests generated in test/export/test_export_strict.py

gmagogsfm reacted with thumbs up emoji
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

why is this set to True?

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Because the un-modded (as in not a variant like retracability) test is not in non-strict mode, however some of the test cases like this one fails in non-strict. So I temporarily forced strict mode for them.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Why does this error disappear now? Does this mean we should also have a variant that is Retraceability w/ Strict export?

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Ah, because of a bug in my code, I forgot to update the strict flag in retracing export call. Changed.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

Summary:Pull Requestresolved:pytorch#148790- Flip the default value of strict argument in torch.export.export from True to False- Update test infra to cope with the change, some of them made the assumption of strict mode as default- Disabled some tests that fail in non-strict mode**If this diff breaks your test, please add `strict=True` to your torch.export.export callsite to mitigate**. DO NOT revert this diff.Test Plan: SandcastleReviewed By: angelayiDifferential Revision: D70228628
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request wasexported from Phabricator. Differential Revision:D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@pytorchbot merge

(Initiating merge automatically since Phabricator Diff has merged)

pytorch-bot[bot] reacted with thumbs up emoji

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours).

Learn more about merging in thewiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to thePyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

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

Reviewers

@angelayiangelayiangelayi approved these changes

@avikchaudhuriavikchaudhuriAwaiting requested review from avikchaudhuriavikchaudhuri is a code owner

@tugsbayasgalantugsbayasgalanAwaiting requested review from tugsbayasgalantugsbayasgalan is a code owner

@zhxchen17zhxchen17Awaiting requested review from zhxchen17zhxchen17 is a code owner

@ydwu4ydwu4Awaiting requested review from ydwu4ydwu4 is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

ciflow/trunkTrigger trunk jobs on your pull requestfb-exportedMergedmodule: bc-breakingRelated to a BC-breaking changerelease notes: exporttopic: bc breakingtopic category

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@gmagogsfm@facebook-github-bot@pytorchmergebot@angelayi
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp