Skip to content

Conversation

@peterbell10
Copy link
Collaborator

@peterbell10 peterbell10 commented Aug 21, 2020

Stack from ghstack:

Differential Revision: D23298651

@dr-ci
Copy link

dr-ci bot commented Aug 21, 2020

💊 CI failures summary and remediations

As of commit bfcee2d (more details on the Dr. CI page):


None of the CI failures appear to be your fault 💚



🚧 1 fixed upstream failure:

These were probably caused by upstream breakages that were already fixed.

Please rebase on the viable/strict branch (expand for instructions)

Since your merge base is older than viable/strict, run these commands:

git fetch https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch viable/strict
git rebase FETCH_HEAD

Check out the recency history of this "viable master" tracking branch.


This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Follow this link to opt-out of these comments for your Pull Requests.

Please report bugs/suggestions on the GitHub issue tracker or post in the (internal) Dr. CI Users group.

See how this bot performed.

This comment has been revised 27 times.

@peterbell10 peterbell10 requested a review from zou3519 August 22, 2020 16:00
Copy link
Contributor

@zou3519 zou3519 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, submitting the PRs like this makes it easier to review :).

Could you rebase the stack so that we get signal on some of the builds below?

@peterbell10
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ghstack seems to have gotten messed up after I rebased on master. @ezyang any idea if this is fixable?

@zou3519
Copy link
Contributor

zou3519 commented Aug 25, 2020

I'm not sure what happened with the rebase. But one way to save it could be to:

  • check out a new branch off of master
  • cherry-pick the PRs in the stack to the new branch
  • run ghstack on that branch

@peterbell10
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks, that did the trick.

@zou3519
Copy link
Contributor

zou3519 commented Aug 26, 2020

@peterbell10 we should skip the softshrink and softplus inplace overlap tests on XLA :

Aug 26 00:53:11 FAIL [0.181s]: test_softplus_inplace_overlap_xla (main.TestNNDeviceTypeXLA)
Aug 26 00:53:11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 26 00:53:11 Traceback (most recent call last):
Aug 26 00:53:11 File "/opt/conda/lib/python3.6/site-packages/torch/testing/_internal/common_device_type.py", line 257, in instantiated_test
Aug 26 00:53:11 result = test(self, *args)
Aug 26 00:53:11 File "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/xla/test/../../test/test_nn.py", line 11899, in test_softplus_inplace_overlap
Aug 26 00:53:11 F.softplus(x, out=x)
Aug 26 00:53:11 AssertionError: RuntimeError not raised
Aug 26 00:53:11
Aug 26 00:53:11 ======================================================================
Aug 26 00:53:11 FAIL [0.004s]: test_softshrink_inplace_overlap_xla (main.TestNNDeviceTypeXLA)
Aug 26 00:53:11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 26 00:53:11 Traceback (most recent call last):
Aug 26 00:53:11 File "/opt/conda/lib/python3.6/site-packages/torch/testing/_internal/common_device_type.py", line 257, in instantiated_test
Aug 26 00:53:11 result = test(self, *args)
Aug 26 00:53:11 File "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/xla/test/../../test/test_nn.py", line 11904, in test_softshrink_inplace_overlap
Aug 26 00:53:11 F.softshrink(x, out=x)
Aug 26 00:53:11 AssertionError: RuntimeError not raised
Aug 26 00:53:11
Aug 26 00:53:11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 26 00:53:11 Ran 126 tests in 605.253s

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@zou3519 merged this pull request in bdee8e0.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot deleted the gh/peterbell10/4/head branch September 1, 2020 14:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants