Skip to content

[ONNX] New export logic leveraging ExportedProgram and ONNX IR#132530

Closed
justinchuby wants to merge 19 commits intogh/justinchuby/96/basefrom
gh/justinchuby/96/head
Closed

[ONNX] New export logic leveraging ExportedProgram and ONNX IR#132530
justinchuby wants to merge 19 commits intogh/justinchuby/96/basefrom
gh/justinchuby/96/head

Conversation

@justinchuby
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@justinchuby justinchuby commented Aug 2, 2024

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

1/n PR to

  • Move code from torch-onnx from commit justinchuby/torch-onnx@395495e into torch.onnx and fixes imports.
  • Integrate the new export logic with the torch.onnx.export API and include basic set of tests.
  • Refactor the API for the change.
  • Improve documentation.

Next PRs will be more tests and docs.

Fix #129277

[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorch-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

pytorch-bot Bot commented Aug 2, 2024

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/132530

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

⏳ 29 Pending, 3 Unrelated Failures

As of commit d564126 with merge base 15b5a0b (image):

FLAKY - The following jobs failed but were likely due to flakiness present on trunk:

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot Bot added the release notes: onnx torch.onnx related changes that should show up in the release notes label Aug 2, 2024
@justinchuby justinchuby requested a review from xadupre August 2, 2024 17:51
[ghstack-poisoned]
@justinchuby justinchuby requested a review from albanD as a code owner August 2, 2024 18:29
@justinchuby

This comment was marked as resolved.

Comment thread test/test_public_bindings.py Outdated
[ghstack-poisoned]
justinchuby added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2024
ghstack-source-id: f52656d
Pull Request resolved: #132530
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
justinchuby added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
ghstack-source-id: 5c370d8
Pull Request resolved: #132530
justinchuby added a commit to justinchuby/pytorch that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2024
ghstack-source-id: 5c370d8
Pull Request resolved: pytorch#132530
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@pytorchbot successfully started a revert job. Check the current status here.
Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

pytorchmergebot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2024
#132530)"

This reverts commit 5fab35d.

Reverted #132530 on behalf of https://github.com/ZainRizvi due to Sorry but it seems like Dr. CI incorrectly flagged the [pull / linux-docs / build-docs-python-false](https://hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/pytorch/132530#28918577682) failure as being flaky. The job started failing consistently on CI once your PR was merged. [GH job link](https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/actions/runs/10454830880/job/28949386844) [HUD commit link](https://hud.pytorch.org/pytorch/pytorch/commit/5fab35d77c7d1db7dbb9d5c516254a510b4f4f64) ([comment](#132530 (comment)))
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@justinchuby your PR has been successfully reverted.

@justinchuby

This comment was marked as resolved.

@justinchuby
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I think I know what is going on. I am going to rebase after #133825

@justinchuby
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@pytorchbot rebase

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@pytorchbot started a rebase job onto refs/remotes/origin/viable/strict. Check the current status here

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Rebase failed due to

Aborting rebase because rebasing the branch resulted in the same sha as the target branch.
This usually happens because the PR has already been merged.  Please rebase locally and push.

Raised by https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/actions/runs/10479306647

…X IR"


1/n PR to

- Move code from torch-onnx from commit justinchuby/torch-onnx@395495e into torch.onnx and fixes imports.
- Integrate the new export logic with the torch.onnx.export API and include basic set of tests.
- Refactor the API for the change.
- Improve documentation.

Next PRs will be more tests and docs.

Fix #129277

[ghstack-poisoned]
…X IR"


1/n PR to

- Move code from torch-onnx from commit justinchuby/torch-onnx@395495e into torch.onnx and fixes imports.
- Integrate the new export logic with the torch.onnx.export API and include basic set of tests.
- Refactor the API for the change.
- Improve documentation.

Next PRs will be more tests and docs.

Fix #129277

[ghstack-poisoned]
justinchuby added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
ghstack-source-id: 727d159
Pull Request resolved: #132530
@justinchuby
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@pytorchbot merge -f "Rocm tests unrelated."

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Please use -f as last resort and instead consider -i/--ignore-current to continue the merge ignoring current failures. This will allow currently pending tests to finish and report signal before the merge.

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

Comment thread torch/onnx/_internal/exporter/_building.py
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request Merged module: onnx Related to torch.onnx open source release notes: onnx torch.onnx related changes that should show up in the release notes Reverted suppress-api-compatibility-check Suppresses the failures of API backward-compatibility linter (Lint/bc_linter) suppress-bc-linter Suppresses the failures of API backward-compatibility linter (Lint/bc_linter)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants