🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/138714

• 📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR
• 📄 Preview C++ docs built from this PR
• ❓ Need help or want to give feedback on the CI? Visit the bot commands wiki or our office hours

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

❗ 1 Active SEVs

There are 1 currently active SEVs. If your PR is affected, please view them below:

• [PRE-EMPTIVE] Experimenting with new runners linux.aws.a100 on inductor-perf-compare.yml

✅ No Failures

As of commit 72c9c9b with merge base c272526 ():
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

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

@pytorchbot merge -f "I only needed to make sure the workflow files were well formatted"

Merge started

Your change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Please use -f as last resort and instead consider -i/--ignore-current to continue the merge ignoring current failures. This will allow currently pending tests to finish and report signal before the merge.

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Thanks for addressing this, hopefully this should be it!

Thank you for the fix, but I'm unsure how it will fix slow workflows.. Don't we need to add something like that to trunk/slow and pull?

Thank you for the fix, but I'm unsure how it will fix slow workflows.. Don't we need to add something like that to trunk/slow and pull?

linux tests and builds already have the check, so those should be ok, and these make up the most of the jobs in slow/trunk etc. Unfortunately I don't think the syntax allows for add the check at the workflow level