-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.7k
Reuse run_torch_xla_tests from pytorch/xla #59888
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
Conversation
[ghstack-poisoned]
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit f64bcbc (more details on the Dr. CI page): ✅ None of the CI failures appear to be your fault 💚
❄️ 1 failure tentatively classified as flakybut reruns have not yet been triggered to confirm:
|
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
|
@ailzhang has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
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.
question: instead of deleting the test_xla function entirely and inlining its new behavior, would it work to just replace the implementation of test_xla and leave what was line 448 as-is?
test_xla() {
# shellcheck disable=SC1091
source "./xla/.circleci/common.sh"
run_torch_xla_tests "$(pwd)" "$(pwd)/xla"
assert_git_not_dirty
}Differential Revision: [D29114274](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D29114274) [ghstack-poisoned]
|
@samestep sounds good! Updated :D |
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.
looks great, thanks!
|
@ailzhang has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
Stack from ghstack:
Differential Revision: D29114274