Skip to content

Conversation

@rileyajones
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation for features / changes

We have been discovering issues with the way the hparam domains are defined. This has lead to issues due to #6377 causing scalar cards to appear empty when one of these issues occurs. I attempted to fix this in #6393 but missed the situation where a string type hparam with more than 10 values returns an empty domain (Googlers see tb/3183400180427144287 for an example).

I am moving the new filtering logic added in by #6377 behind a flag while we fix this issue on the backend.

Screenshots of UI changes (or N/A)

Screenshots for Googlers only

Before: https://screenshot.googleplex.com/AELb2oHqhxa8UNF

After:
Feature Flag Enabled: https://screenshot.googleplex.com/AcPxsbNNXSSFGx9
Feature Flag Disabled: https://screenshot.googleplex.com/3aEXpfHrGZdzYgZ

@rileyajones rileyajones marked this pull request as ready for review May 19, 2023 21:46
@rileyajones rileyajones requested a review from bmd3k May 19, 2023 21:46
runSelectionMap &&
runSelectionMap.get(runId) &&
renderableRuns.has(runId)
(renderableRuns.has(runId) || !hparamsInTimeSeriesEnabled)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps put the flag first?
(!hparamsInTimeSeriesEnabled || renderableRuns.has(runId))

Personally, I think this would be the most readable, but some might object to it as being unnecessarily verbose:
(hparamsInTimeSeriesEnabled ? renderableRuns.has(runId) : true)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had considered the second option but as you suggested I found it unnecessarily verbose. If you're okay with the yoda clause the 1st option you suggest does seem good to me.

expect(data[6].run).toEqual('1 a/run7');
}));

it('filters runs by hparam when enableHparamsInTimeSeries is true', fakeAsync(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be nice to refactor to share most of the setup code (perhaps in a beforeEach()) and make each test small and focused.

@rileyajones rileyajones merged commit 94251bb into tensorflow:master May 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants