Skip to content
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

Bug fix: TraceStatus hydration from proto #12044

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 19, 2024
Merged

Conversation

mparkhe
Copy link
Collaborator

@mparkhe mparkhe commented May 19, 2024

🛠 DevTools 🛠

Open in GitHub Codespaces

Install mlflow from this PR

pip install git+https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow.git@refs/pull/12044/merge

Checkout with GitHub CLI

gh pr checkout 12044

What changes are proposed in this pull request?

Fixing a bug in trace info deserialization

How is this PR tested?

  • Existing unit/integration tests
  • New unit/integration tests
  • Manual tests

Does this PR require documentation update?

  • No. You can skip the rest of this section.
  • Yes. I've updated:
    • Examples
    • API references
    • Instructions

Release Notes

Is this a user-facing change?

  • No. You can skip the rest of this section.
  • Yes. Give a description of this change to be included in the release notes for MLflow users.

What component(s), interfaces, languages, and integrations does this PR affect?

Components

  • area/artifacts: Artifact stores and artifact logging
  • area/build: Build and test infrastructure for MLflow
  • area/deployments: MLflow Deployments client APIs, server, and third-party Deployments integrations
  • area/docs: MLflow documentation pages
  • area/examples: Example code
  • area/model-registry: Model Registry service, APIs, and the fluent client calls for Model Registry
  • area/models: MLmodel format, model serialization/deserialization, flavors
  • area/recipes: Recipes, Recipe APIs, Recipe configs, Recipe Templates
  • area/projects: MLproject format, project running backends
  • area/scoring: MLflow Model server, model deployment tools, Spark UDFs
  • area/server-infra: MLflow Tracking server backend
  • area/tracking: Tracking Service, tracking client APIs, autologging

Interface

  • area/uiux: Front-end, user experience, plotting, JavaScript, JavaScript dev server
  • area/docker: Docker use across MLflow's components, such as MLflow Projects and MLflow Models
  • area/sqlalchemy: Use of SQLAlchemy in the Tracking Service or Model Registry
  • area/windows: Windows support

Language

  • language/r: R APIs and clients
  • language/java: Java APIs and clients
  • language/new: Proposals for new client languages

Integrations

  • integrations/azure: Azure and Azure ML integrations
  • integrations/sagemaker: SageMaker integrations
  • integrations/databricks: Databricks integrations

How should the PR be classified in the release notes? Choose one:

  • rn/none - No description will be included. The PR will be mentioned only by the PR number in the "Small Bugfixes and Documentation Updates" section
  • rn/breaking-change - The PR will be mentioned in the "Breaking Changes" section
  • rn/feature - A new user-facing feature worth mentioning in the release notes
  • rn/bug-fix - A user-facing bug fix worth mentioning in the release notes
  • rn/documentation - A user-facing documentation change worth mentioning in the release notes

Should this PR be included in the next patch release?

Yes should be selected for bug fixes, documentation updates, and other small changes. No should be selected for new features and larger changes. If you're unsure about the release classification of this PR, leave this unchecked to let the maintainers decide.

What is a minor/patch release?
  • Minor release: a release that increments the second part of the version number (e.g., 1.2.0 -> 1.3.0).
    Bug fixes, doc updates and new features usually go into minor releases.
  • Patch release: a release that increments the third part of the version number (e.g., 1.2.0 -> 1.2.1).
    Bug fixes and doc updates usually go into patch releases.
  • Yes (this PR will be cherry-picked and included in the next patch release)
  • No (this PR will be included in the next minor release)

Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 19, 2024

Documentation preview for 968eb21 will be available when this CircleCI job
completes successfully.

More info

@github-actions github-actions bot added area/tracking Tracking service, tracking client APIs, autologging rn/bug-fix Mention under Bug Fixes in Changelogs. labels May 19, 2024
Copy link

@mparkhe Thank you for the contribution! Could you fix the following issue(s)?

⚠ DCO check

The DCO check failed. Please sign off your commit(s) by following the instructions here. See https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work for more details.

Signed-off-by: Mani Parkhe <mani@databricks.com>
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ def to_dict(self):
Update status field to the string value for serialization.
"""
trace_info_dict = asdict(self)
trace_info_dict["status"] = self.status.value
Copy link
Collaborator

@dbczumar dbczumar May 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Following up from our thread offline, the defined type of self.status in TraceInfo is TraceStatus, so the preexisting logic in to_dict() should in theory be correct. My guess is that TraceInfo is being constructed with a string type for TraceStatus (which is the incorrect type) when a trace is read from the backend.

The problem seems to lie in

return TraceInfo.from_proto(response_proto.trace_info)
->
status=TraceStatus.from_proto(proto.status),
->
return ProtoTraceStatus.Name(proto_status)

here, we see that TraceStatus.from_proto() doesn't return a TraceStatus like it should. Instead, it returns a string. We need to fix the implementation of TraceStatus.from_proto() and then add test coverage verifying that a TraceStatus constructed from a proto can be converted to dict / JSON and back.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah! I realized that the fix was superficial and hence incorrect. Fixed the from_proto hydration and added a bunch of tests

Copy link
Collaborator

@dbczumar dbczumar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Following from https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/12044/files#r1605945236, I think the fix lies in TraceStatus.from_proto()

Signed-off-by: Mani Parkhe <mani@databricks.com>
@mparkhe mparkhe requested a review from dbczumar May 19, 2024 06:39
Signed-off-by: Mani Parkhe <mani@databricks.com>
@mparkhe mparkhe changed the title Bug fix: Deserialize trace info into python dictionary Bug fix: TraceStatus hydration from proto May 19, 2024
@@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
import pytest

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we add a test case where we do TraceInfo.from_dict(TraceInfo.from_proto(...).to_dict()) to make sure that loading a trace from proto and converting to dict & back works properly? This will prevent recurrence of the issue.

Comment on lines +53 to +69
def test_to_dict(trace_info):
trace_as_dict = trace_info.to_dict()
assert trace_as_dict == {
"request_id": "request_id",
"experiment_id": "test_experiment",
"timestamp_ms": 0,
"execution_time_ms": 1,
"status": "OK",
"request_metadata": {
"foo": "bar",
"k" * 1000: "v" * 1000,
},
"tags": {
"baz": "qux",
"k" * 2000: "v" * 2000,
},
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome that we're adding this. I think this still passes on master because the status field of TraceInfo is being set to a TraceStatus object in https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/12044/files#diff-5aee524692b8b8837b083f08c50a7feb4ebc2d192b97548527ad6978173bc99dR16.

If we also add https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/pull/12044/files#r1605960450, then we will prevent recurrence.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

doh!

Copy link
Collaborator

@dbczumar dbczumar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Signed-off-by: Mani Parkhe <mani@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Mani Parkhe <mani@databricks.com>
@mparkhe mparkhe requested a review from dbczumar May 19, 2024 07:53
@dbczumar dbczumar merged commit 2c7906a into mlflow:master May 19, 2024
39 of 41 checks passed
@mparkhe mparkhe deleted the trace_info branch May 19, 2024 08:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/tracking Tracking service, tracking client APIs, autologging patch-2.12.3 rn/bug-fix Mention under Bug Fixes in Changelogs.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants