-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22.1k
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
Skip failing tests in test_nn if compiled without LAPACK #70913
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 3333c51 (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).Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group. |
cc @lezcano these tests are important. We should make sure we can run them without Lapack. Should we pick a different set of functions to ensure it is true? |
@albanD I'm new to the codebase, so my proposed fix was just an improvised attempts to make it work. One small thing that comes to mind - use |
No problem! |
I agree that we should use a simpler function to test this functionality that does not depend on LAPACK. I think that this skip is fine for now given that we always use LAPACK in the CI, but it'd be good to at least leave a |
Sounds good! |
@albanD yep. I think I can also add a github issue listing those tests to be fixed WDYT |
Yes, an issue is even better! |
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 modulo a very small nit!
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.
started a review by mistake, pls ignore 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.
Thanks for the update!
@albanD has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
Fixes #70912