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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Migrate to sitrep mechanism for T5X and PAXML MGMN tests #401
Migrate to sitrep mechanism for T5X and PAXML MGMN tests #401
Changes from 46 commits
6d709be
187cee2
3328f46
b0fdebf
6263408
ba4f05e
cf6574b
325277e
31b5809
dfd1a34
9d42afb
fcaba7f
550e490
4dcf31b
4dbe474
8d73989
da3f66b
f882f2f
cd90c6a
7af36b0
3ff47ce
abf6d4e
fd5baf3
86a4f1d
9cd1ebd
06794e2
eac4c8f
e7f0d89
c794476
e925149
6456d7e
319b1e1
ad70713
2951a49
b7219fb
1db7ea6
d388d14
643624b
0bf70f7
cf95235
cdc7a48
40aebf5
276ac33
ae25d1e
21cf73b
00d0e00
827a6ce
c89367d
5f9f401
70bea03
9f5d230
339a228
b496f90
1e2389e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is similar to our current practice, which uses a final postprocessing job to determine whether the overall MGMN test suite succeeds.
It has the problem that error feedback is delayed and made it difficult to investigate which individual tests failed.
For the new sitrep reporting system, let's do the following:
continue-on-error
option can be helpful here.This helps to localize the error status for easier debugging and tracking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If a single job fails, what should be the outcome of the entire workflow? Also, I think we still need this output for downstream jobs like
triage
orpublish container
since those depend on this overall outcome.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the MGMN usecase, the tests are submitted to slurm via SSH. To mark an individual job as failure I can inspect the exit code and mark it accordingly. We would still need the overall status though, if there's any other recommended way to get this output, I'm happy to incorporate that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. How about we make individual jobs fail while also let the overall status be the Boolean AND of the individual job states?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, a single job failure is already indicated. (ref: https://github.com/NVIDIA/JAX-Toolbox/actions/runs/7053172928/job/19199718748). The STATUS has to be derived not only from the job result, but also from its metrics so it is not possible to set status just based on the job states.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
At face value, the specific error message from the job that you provided looks coincidental. I understand that it may be the result of the true underlying error, but the message itself does not clearly indicate that. Could we improve on it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also could you please add a natural language description of the logic regarding
so that it serves as a form of documentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if there's a way to provide a more informative error based on the failure, might have to look at it outside the scope of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done in 40aebf5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This job would be unnecessary if we localize the error status to individual test jobs. However, there may still be situations where it is needed, i.e. if some checks use the collective results of many/all test jobs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this job is still needed to publish the overall badge since that's a collection of the results of all tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it.