KEMBAR78
Set non-strict export as default mode by gmagogsfm · Pull Request #148790 · pytorch/pytorch · GitHub
Skip to content

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Set non-strict export as default mode #148790

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@gmagogsfm
Copy link
Contributor

@gmagogsfm gmagogsfm commented Mar 7, 2025 •
edited by pytorch-bot bot
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-bot bot commented Mar 7, 2025 •
edited
Loading

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.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 commit 20b836f with merge base 924a247 (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 was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

angelayi
angelayi reviewed Mar 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
test/export/test_export_strict.py Outdated
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 it non-strict
# If user already specified strict, don't make it strict

test/export/testing.py Outdated
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

test/export/test_export.py Outdated
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
Contributor Author

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.

test/export/test_export.py Outdated
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
Contributor Author

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 was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@gmagogsfm @facebook-github-bot
Set non-strict export as default mode (pytorch#148790)
20b836f 
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: 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: Sandcastle

Reviewed By: angelayi

Differential Revision: D70228628
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70228628

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@pytorchbot merge

(Initiating merge automatically since Phabricator Diff has merged)

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

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

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

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

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@gmagogsfm gmagogsfm added the module: bc-breaking Related to a BC-breaking change label Mar 24, 2025
@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the topic: bc breaking topic category label Mar 24, 2025
@CuiYifeng CuiYifeng mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@angelayi angelayi angelayi approved these changes

@avikchaudhuri avikchaudhuri Awaiting requested review from avikchaudhuri avikchaudhuri is a code owner

@tugsbayasgalan tugsbayasgalan Awaiting requested review from tugsbayasgalan tugsbayasgalan is a code owner

@zhxchen17 zhxchen17 Awaiting requested review from zhxchen17 zhxchen17 is a code owner

@ydwu4 ydwu4 Awaiting requested review from ydwu4 ydwu4 is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request fb-exported Merged module: bc-breaking Related to a BC-breaking change release notes: export topic: bc breaking topic 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