Skip to content
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

Reenable explicit comms tests #770

Merged

Conversation

madsbk
Copy link
Member

@madsbk madsbk commented Nov 5, 2021

The explicit-comms tests are always skipped sys.version_info.minor < 80, fixed.
Also adding some type hints

@github-actions github-actions bot added the python python code needed label Nov 5, 2021
@madsbk madsbk added 2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change and removed python python code needed labels Nov 5, 2021
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-21.12@984263c). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head dda21a2 differs from pull request most recent head 002f422. Consider uploading reports for the commit 002f422 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-21.12     #770   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   69.61%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?       15           
  Lines                   ?     1965           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     1368           
  Misses                  ?      597           
  Partials                ?        0           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 984263c...002f422. Read the comment docs.

@madsbk madsbk added 3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team and removed 2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress labels Nov 5, 2021
@madsbk madsbk marked this pull request as ready for review November 5, 2021 09:47
@madsbk madsbk requested a review from a team as a code owner November 5, 2021 09:47
Copy link
Member

@pentschev pentschev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @madsbk , I've left a few comments that I don't really understand about this PR, could you clarify?

dask_cuda/proxify_device_objects.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
from dask_cuda.utils import get_ucx_config

pytestmark = pytest.mark.skipif(
sys.version_info.minor < 80,
sys.version_info.minor < 8,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems this is still needed because of dask/distributed#5380, when that gets merged will we be able to remove this skipif?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, it is still needed. It is just fixing the typo -- we want to run the test on Python v3.8+ not Python v3.80+ :P

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, that makes sense. Will dask/distributed#5380 resolve that, i.e., will we be able to run on Python 3.7 again after it's merged?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

dask/distributed#5380 is in now, are we safe removing the skipif here?

Copy link
Member Author

@madsbk madsbk Nov 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

dask/distributed#5380 is in now, are we safe removing the skipif here?

True, but let's merge this to get the type hints and then merge #754

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

pentschev commented Nov 5, 2021

I don't think the failing tests are due to this, let's try rerunning.

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

That’s weird, both this and #771 (comment) PRs segfaulted on the centos7 build, so it's clear it's not an issue with the PR.

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

1 similar comment
@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Sorry Peter 😅

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

Ha! You're 3 seconds too slow @jakirkham ! 😄

@pentschev
Copy link
Member

rerun tests

@madsbk
Copy link
Member Author

madsbk commented Nov 8, 2021

@gpucibot merge

Copy link
Member

@pentschev pentschev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks @madsbk !

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit be4ffcc into rapidsai:branch-21.12 Nov 8, 2021
@madsbk madsbk deleted the reenable_explit_comms_tests branch November 12, 2021 08:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants