Skip to content

Cecilia/upstream/pdpd frontend#3

Closed
ceciliapeng2011 wants to merge 62 commits intonosovmik:pdpd_frontendfrom
ceciliapeng2011:cecilia/upstream/pdpd_frontend
Closed

Cecilia/upstream/pdpd frontend#3
ceciliapeng2011 wants to merge 62 commits intonosovmik:pdpd_frontendfrom
ceciliapeng2011:cecilia/upstream/pdpd_frontend

Conversation

@ceciliapeng2011
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Details:

  • item1
  • ...

Tickets:

  • ticket-id

@ceciliapeng2011 ceciliapeng2011 marked this pull request as draft April 14, 2021 03:01
return res;
}

INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P(FrontendOpTest, FrontendOpTest,
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd recommend to use PDPDOpTest as first here. Because when we'll have multiple frontends with shared common tests, each generated test shall be unique.
E.g. user will be able to do "./unit-test --gtest_filter=PDPDOpTest"

.gitignore Outdated
ngraph/src/protobuf/
ngraph/src/src/
ngraph/src/test/
ngraph/test/files/paddlepaddle/models/*
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually unit tests are not intended to generate models on the fly, we should put it to source control (under git lfs) to make unit tests runnable.
So, this path shall not be in '.gitignore', also .pdmodel, .pdiparams shall be pushed to repository.
Generate scripts are basically just for reference for developers, so that everyone will know how existing test models were generated


//Inputs inputs;
// data (1, 3, 4, 4) input tensor
res.inputs.emplace_back(test::NDArray<float, 4>{{{{{0.f, 1.f, 2.f, 3.f, 4.f},
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm getting exception here, looks like input needs 1x3x4x4=48 elements, but only 35 is given


std::string FrontendOpTest::getTestCaseName(const testing::TestParamInfo<FrontendOpTestParam> &obj) {
std::string res = obj.param.m_frontEndName + "_" + obj.param.m_modelName;
//res += "I" + joinStrings(obj.param.m_oldInputs) + joinStrings(obj.param.m_newInputs);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it's fine to have it this way for now, just note that generated 'testCaseName' must be unique for test system.
Combining it only with frontendName and modelName, you'll not be able to run FrontendOptest with same model, but with different inputs


// convert
std::shared_ptr<ngraph::Function> function;
function = m_frontEnd->convert(m_inputModel);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ASSERT_NO_THROW


INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P(FrontendOpTest, pool2dTest,
::testing::Values(
avgPool(),
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm getting "Unsupported pooling type" here, is it expected?

@ceciliapeng2011
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

close it as it is obsolete.

nosovmik pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2021
* [FrontEnd]enable 16 ops conversion

* [FrontEnd]fix typo in interpolate

* param support tensor (#3)

* Update hard_sigmoid.cpp (#4)

* Yi3/fix paddle part2

* fix paddle conversion

* ops forward declaration

* use tile instead of broadcast

* Add validation check in dropout (#8)

* fix conflict

* fix code style

* fix transpose2

* use perm size in transpose2

* remove check in transpose2

Co-authored-by: Luo Cheng <cheng.luo@intel.com>
Co-authored-by: Mang Guo <mang.guo@intel.com>
nosovmik pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2022
…toolkit#9691)

* [Transformations] Added interchangeable reshape elimination

* Applied comments #2

* returned Reshape in condition

* applied comments #3

* applied comments #4

* added comment in plugin with reason about transformation
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.

6 participants