Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor gather_test_model to be hard coded directly #9227

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2025

Conversation

mergennachin
Copy link
Contributor

@mergennachin mergennachin commented Mar 13, 2025

The CI runner logic should directly be in the corresponding yml files.

Gather_test_models.py contains overly complicated python logic on what models, backends, runners to do, with many switch statements.
I think we should just hard code directly in job descriptions to simplify things and know exactly what jobs are running directly in the yml file.

This is a no-op PR

Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Mar 13, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/9227

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

⏳ 26 Pending, 1 Unrelated Failure

As of commit af97aff with merge base 753da9a (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 facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Mar 13, 2025
@mergennachin mergennachin requested a review from SS-JIA March 13, 2025 16:02
@mergennachin mergennachin force-pushed the refactor_ci_job branch 2 times, most recently from 831a115 to 0a6fcd5 Compare March 13, 2025 16:16
@mergennachin mergennachin merged commit 5402716 into main Mar 13, 2025
166 of 172 checks passed
@mergennachin mergennachin deleted the refactor_ci_job branch March 13, 2025 18:06
Copy link
Contributor

@jackzhxng jackzhxng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are we able to specify specific runner per model using the matrix? We might need something like this to move the linux trunk test off gather_test_models.py e.g.

include:
          - model: efficient_sam
            backend: portable
            runner: linux.4x.large

@mergennachin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jackzhxng

Yeah, you can use include and exclude logic directly in the matrix

The example you provided works.

@mergennachin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jackzhxng

One thing that I realized I had a bug. The include statements should define all the variables.

#9235

mergennachin added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2025
Fixing #9227, 

It wasn't running efficient_sam, llama etc. Because I had to define all
variables in the include statement.

Since build-tool and runner are singletons, I just hard code it.

Test Plan: 

Make sure trunk jobs have softmax, efficient_sam etc.
mergennachin added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2025
Fixing #9227

matrix.timeout is not populated. Just hard-code the value now.

Also fix another cleanup DEMO_BACKEND_ID is not there anymore.

Test Plan: Make sure there are 6 jobs (test-models-linux) in the
pull.yml category.
mergennachin added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2025
Looks like I lied when I said
#9227 was a no-op

Adding back pull jobs for linux x86
mergennachin added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2025
Depends on #9227 and
#9207

Here's the net result after a sequence of PRs:

- Reduce trunk test-model-macos jobs (from 38 down to 15)
- Add arm64 trunk test-model jobs (from 0 up to 31)
- Add arm64 pull test-model-jobs jobs (+4)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ciflow/trunk CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. topic: not user facing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants