-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pass in sourceId tag in all cases #10464
Conversation
Documentation preview for 61b1e50 will be available here when this CircleCI job completes successfully. More info
|
mlflow/tracking/default_experiment/databricks_notebook_experiment_provider.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
try: | ||
experiment_id = MlflowClient().create_experiment(source_notebook_name, None, tags) | ||
except MlflowException as e: | ||
if e.error_code == databricks_pb2.ErrorCode.Name( | ||
databricks_pb2.INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE | ||
): | ||
# If repo notebook experiment creation isn't enabled, fall back to | ||
# using the notebook ID | ||
# If determined that it is not a repo notebook | ||
experiment_id = source_notebook_id | ||
else: | ||
raise e |
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.
@annzhang-db I thought we would get a RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
exception if we call create_experiment()
with a non-repo notebook path that already exists. Is that what the backend does?
If the backend does indeed return RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
, I think that would break the current implementation of DatabricksNotebookExperimentProvider
in this PR; have we tested this thoroughly?
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.
Yes, we get a RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
exception if we call create_experiment()
with a non-repo notebook path that already exists AND no sourceType/sourceId tags passed in. Since we are passing in the sourceId here, it will actually go into the previous case (in the backend PR, ill leave a comment there) and raise INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE error for sourceId but no sourceType.
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.
So if I log a param in a non-repo notebook, then attach/detach from the cluster, then try to log a param again, won't this default experiment provider try to call create_experiment()
under the hood and then fail at the user level with RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
, which will break the user's workflow?
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.
It will call create_experiment() with a sourceId tag, which will not fail with RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
. Only if create_experiment() is called without sourceId tag will it fail with RESOURCE_ALREADY_EXISTS
.
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.
Ah, got it!
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.
LGTM! Thanks @annzhang-db !
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.
LGTM once we add an integration suite test case: https://src.dev.databricks.com/databricks/universe/-/blob/mlflow/src/test/e2e/tracking/DefaultRepoNotebookExperimentIntegrationSuite.scala. Thanks @annzhang-db
Signed-off-by: Ann Zhang <ann.zhang@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Ann Zhang <ann.zhang@databricks.com>
馃洜 DevTools 馃洜
Install mlflow from this PR
Checkout with GitHub CLI
Related Issues/PRs
#xxxWhat changes are proposed in this pull request?
How is this PR tested?
Does this PR require documentation update?
Release Notes
Is this a user-facing change?
What component(s), interfaces, languages, and integrations does this PR affect?
Components
area/artifacts
: Artifact stores and artifact loggingarea/build
: Build and test infrastructure for MLflowarea/docs
: MLflow documentation pagesarea/examples
: Example codearea/gateway
: AI Gateway service, Gateway client APIs, third-party Gateway integrationsarea/model-registry
: Model Registry service, APIs, and the fluent client calls for Model Registryarea/models
: MLmodel format, model serialization/deserialization, flavorsarea/recipes
: Recipes, Recipe APIs, Recipe configs, Recipe Templatesarea/projects
: MLproject format, project running backendsarea/scoring
: MLflow Model server, model deployment tools, Spark UDFsarea/server-infra
: MLflow Tracking server backendarea/tracking
: Tracking Service, tracking client APIs, autologgingInterface
area/uiux
: Front-end, user experience, plotting, JavaScript, JavaScript dev serverarea/docker
: Docker use across MLflow's components, such as MLflow Projects and MLflow Modelsarea/sqlalchemy
: Use of SQLAlchemy in the Tracking Service or Model Registryarea/windows
: Windows supportLanguage
language/r
: R APIs and clientslanguage/java
: Java APIs and clientslanguage/new
: Proposals for new client languagesIntegrations
integrations/azure
: Azure and Azure ML integrationsintegrations/sagemaker
: SageMaker integrationsintegrations/databricks
: Databricks integrationsHow 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" sectionrn/breaking-change
- The PR will be mentioned in the "Breaking Changes" sectionrn/feature
- A new user-facing feature worth mentioning in the release notesrn/bug-fix
- A user-facing bug fix worth mentioning in the release notesrn/documentation
- A user-facing documentation change worth mentioning in the release notes