-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 915
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
Revert "Add custom name setter and getter for proxy objects in cudf.pandas
"
#16267
Conversation
…pandas` …" This reverts commit 2b2058d.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## branch-24.08 #16267 +/- ##
===============================================
Coverage ? 83.44%
===============================================
Files ? 184
Lines ? 28142
Branches ? 0
===============================================
Hits ? 23482
Misses ? 4660
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Hey @galipremsagar, do you know where I can see the failures caused by #16234? |
additional_attributes={ | ||
"__init__": _DELETE, | ||
"__setattr__": Index__setattr__, | ||
"name": property(name), |
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.
Oh maybe this should've been a _FastSlowAttribute
?
return self._fsproxy_wrapped._name | ||
|
||
|
||
def Index__setattr__(self, name, value): |
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.
Just a note: This is the same __setattr__
method from _FastSlowProxy
except customized to set the _name
attr(_names
for MultiIndex).
edit: add a link
They can be seen in this job summary: https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf/actions/runs/9877265093/attempts/2#summary-27293125763 Since this PR reverts the changes that were causing the failures, you can see the same job summary of this PR here: https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf/actions/runs/9901041027/attempts/2#summary-27373925178 |
Thanks for catching this! I wasn't aware of these tables. Its interesting that the drop is so large, so I'll look into some of the pandas tests with large drops in the table. |
I wonder how "volatile" the pandas pass rate is. What's the threshold for large decrease or increase? |
0.01 to 0.03% changes can be safely considered noise. |
Any reason why we don't make the pandas test check fail for changes >0.05% (say)? |
We currently compare against the nightly baseline, which means we will have a delta that is not being caused by the PR alone, but the diff between the nightly and the PR. To fail the job if the changes >0.05% we will to have a baseline that is run on |
Resolved by #16270 |
Reverts #16234
This is an investigation PR into sudden spike in failures.