Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2023. It is now read-only.

try minimal requirements #62

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 19, 2021
Merged

try minimal requirements #62

merged 8 commits into from
Feb 19, 2021

Conversation

Borda
Copy link
Member

@Borda Borda commented Feb 2, 2021

What does this PR do?

unfreeze requirements, cc: @SeanNaren

Before submitting

  • Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? (no need for typos and docs improvements)
  • Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
  • Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
  • Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes?
  • Did you write any new necessary tests? [not needed for typos/docs]
  • Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
  • If you made a notable change (that affects users), did you update the CHANGELOG?

PR review

  • Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.

Did you have fun?

Make sure you had fun coding 🙃

@Borda Borda added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 2, 2021
@Borda Borda enabled auto-merge (squash) February 2, 2021 22:34
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #62 (957ff0a) into master (522cf75) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #62   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.39%   87.39%           
=======================================
  Files          49       49           
  Lines        1579     1579           
=======================================
  Hits         1380     1380           
  Misses        199      199           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 87.39% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.


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 522cf75...991678c. Read the comment docs.

@carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

carmocca commented Feb 2, 2021

I'm not sure we can have torch<1.7.1 because for earlier versions, the loaded weights in the examples will fail due to PyTorch breaking compatibility in their serialization

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 2, 2021

I'm not sure we can have torch<1.7.1 because for earlier versions, the loaded weights in the examples will fail due to PyTorch breaking compatibility in their serialization

good point but in such case, we shall have it tested somewhere... anyway fix free on one particular version is very bad :/

@carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

carmocca commented Feb 2, 2021

We have a test for it

https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/lightning-flash/blob/3c5b535ce26a12fd141acff7e20bc2b18ee56a0a/tests/core/test_model.py#L115-L129

We would need to run it with different PyTorch versions

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 2, 2021

I'm not sure we can have torch<1.7.1 because for earlier versions, the loaded weights in the examples will fail due to PyTorch breaking compatibility in their serialization

but this breaking change was in 1.6? @SeanNaren

@carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

carmocca commented Feb 2, 2021

Yes, the change was in 1.6 but we had some issues before release and fixed it to 1.7.1 to be safe.

Can you add a single job with PyTorch 1.6 in CI? To be sure

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 3, 2021

Can you add a single job with PyTorch 1.6 in CI? To be sure

now the min is 1.6 so all 6 tests are using it - Linux/Mac/Win and py3.6 and py3.8

@tchaton tchaton disabled auto-merge February 5, 2021 11:56
Copy link
Contributor

@carmocca carmocca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need to think about how to solve the weights compatibility issue. See failing tests:

https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/lightning-flash/blob/90a5d798d7d494cc66ca3e9b1294679769095f32/tests/core/test_model.py#L115-L129

RuntimeError: Only one file(not dir) is allowed in the zipfile

The weights were generated with torch==1.7.1 and fail to load with torch==1.6.0

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 8, 2021

The weights were generated with torch==1.7.1 and fail to load with torch==1.6.0

Yes, the weights shall be generated in 1.6 so they would be compatible with all after 1.6...

@carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

carmocca commented Feb 8, 2021

Yes, the weights shall be generated in 1.6 so they would be compatible with all after 1.6...

That's what we thought initially but didn't seem to work before release. We'll have to try again

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 8, 2021

@carmocca it is also what I did for PL checkpoint legacy testing, all are created with PT 1.4 as they are possible to load in any future version up to 1.8

@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 15, 2021

@carmocca how is it going with generating weights with lower pytorch?

requirements.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Borda Borda enabled auto-merge (squash) February 17, 2021 23:29
requirements.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

@carmocca how is it going with generating weights with lower pytorch?

Bit busy with the 1.2 release. @teddykoker can you do it? I believe you did it originally

requirements.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
requirements.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 18, 2021

@carmocca how is it going with generating weights with lower pytorch?

Bit busy with the 1.2 release. @teddykoker can you do it? I believe you did it originally

no rush, I have created an issue for it... #128

requirements.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
requirements.txt Show resolved Hide resolved
@Borda Borda disabled auto-merge February 18, 2021 18:29
@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 18, 2021

ok, let's try reverse strategy :D

@Borda Borda changed the title try minimal requirements try minimal requirements [wip] Feb 19, 2021
@Borda Borda mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2021
@Borda
Copy link
Member Author

Borda commented Feb 19, 2021

@Borda Borda changed the title try minimal requirements [wip] try minimal requirements Feb 19, 2021
@Borda Borda merged commit 0750ad9 into master Feb 19, 2021
@Borda Borda deleted the min-req branch February 19, 2021 15:56
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants