Fix table row inference benchmark using wrong model path#38569
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a bug in the table row inference benchmark where pipeline options were being incorrectly parsed, leading to the use of invalid model paths. By disabling prefix matching in the argument parser and adopting a typed approach for accessing pipeline options, the change ensures that configuration flags are correctly mapped and applied during benchmark execution. Highlights
New Features🧠 You can now enable Memory (public preview) to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request refactors the TableRowInferenceBenchmark to utilize TableRowInferenceOptions for pipeline configuration and updates the TestPipeline to disable argument abbreviation, preventing ambiguous flag matching. Feedback highlights a potential logic regression where using the 'or' operator for default values could incorrectly override a valid '0' input, suggesting explicit None checks instead. Additionally, it is recommended to store the options object as a class attribute during initialization to avoid redundant parsing in the test method.
|
Assigning reviewers: R: @claudevdm for label python. Note: If you would like to opt out of this review, comment Available commands:
The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments). |
Fixes: https://github.com/apache/beam/actions/runs/26142790013/job/76891591709
The table row inference batch benchmark on Dataflow failed because the pipeline tried to load a model from a file named batch instead of the real model.
That happened by mistake: the test read --mode=batch as if it were --model_path. This change fixes how options are read so the correct model path is always used.
Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:
addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, commentfixes #<ISSUE NUMBER>instead.CHANGES.mdwith noteworthy changes.See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.
To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md
GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)
See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.