[tensorflow] Add support for the is_symbolic_tensor predicate

[hvaara]

What does this PR do?

This PR adds support for the is_symbolic_tensor predicate in TensorFlow. This predicate will become available starting with version 2.14.

Before submitting

• This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
• Did you read the contributor guideline,
  Pull Request section?
• Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the forum? Please add a link
  to it if that's the case.
• Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
  documentation guidelines, and
  here are tips on formatting docstrings.
• Did you write any new necessary tests?

Who can review?

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.

[HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev]

The documentation is not available anymore as the PR was closed or merged.

[amyeroberts]

cc @Rocketknight1

[Rocketknight1]

This looks clean! Do you have any links to documentation/discussion about is_symbolic_tensor in TF, though? This is the first I've heard of it - I can see the relevant code in the TF codebase, but are we guaranteed that the behaviour won't change before the 2.14 release? Also, given that it's in the codebase already, won't it be in the 2.13 release rather than 2.14?

[rjpower]

I wrote the is_symbolic_tensor code in question. The 2.14 was a guess from me, I wasn't sure if the original PR was going to make the TF branch cut, but it looks like it will make 2.13. The intention of is_symbolic_tensor is actually to provide more stability:

We're looking into breaking the current inheritance setup in TF. EagerTensor inherits from symbolic Tensor, and this adds a lot of weird complication in the TF codebase, along with awkward checks like type(t) == Tensor. This method was introduced to avoid churning the few users who need to distinguish between eager and symbolic tensors.

We don't have a proposal yet for the split, but we're front-running some of this prep/cleanup.

[Rocketknight1]

LGTM in that case, and thanks for the clarification!