-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.6k
Delete code coverage jobs from CI #65362
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
CI Flow Status⚛️ CI FlowRuleset - Version:
You can add a comment to the PR and tag @pytorchbot with the following commands: # ciflow rerun, "ciflow/default" will always be added automatically
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun
# ciflow rerun with additional labels "-l <ciflow/label_name>", which is equivalent to adding these labels manually and trigger the rerun
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun -l ciflow/scheduled -l ciflow/slow For more information, please take a look at the CI Flow Wiki. |
🔗 Helpful links
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 72a6e52 (more details on the Dr. CI page): 💚 💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚 💚 This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Follow this link to opt-out of these comments for your Pull Requests.Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group. |
@malfet 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.
thanks for doing this!
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.
ci simplification! 🎉
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.
This is fine, but are we doing this with the intent of never bringing it back?
@janeyx99 at the same time, keeping dead code in the repo is not much better in the long run, and if one chooses to they can always revert this PR to restore functionality. |
6a9a974
to
78c8201
Compare
@malfet has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
78c8201
to
372332d
Compare
@malfet has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
372332d
to
062af2c
Compare
Re-basing and waiting for onnx_ort_test1 tests |
As it does not seem useful to the lots of peope, see https://fb.workplace.com/groups/1144215345733672/posts/2062909540530910
062af2c
to
72a6e52
Compare
onnx_ort test failures were related to an attempt to delete pytorch/.jenkins/caffe2/test.sh Line 104 in 127c940
which old caffe2 test still rely upon |
@malfet has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
As it does not seem useful to the lots of peope, see https://fb.workplace.com/groups/1144215345733672/posts/2062909540530910
cc @ezyang @seemethere @malfet @pytorch/pytorch-dev-infra