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

Reset the current progress tracking state during double evaluation #11119

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 17, 2021

Conversation

carmocca
Copy link
Contributor

@carmocca carmocca commented Dec 17, 2021

What does this PR do?

With fault-tolerance disabled, the following runs twice through the test set, it's equivalent to max_test_epochs=2

trainer = Trainer(...)
trainer.test(...)
trainer.test(...)

However, currently in master, if fault-tolerance is enabled, the second test exits early. This is because the done condition for the test loop has been already fulfilled:

self.dataloader_progress.current.completed >= self.num_dataloaders

To avoid this, we need to check whether we are NOT fitting, and whether the previous state is done, then in that case reset the state.

This is different from how fit works where this is the expected behavior and the user is required to set a different max_epochs value. The equivalent would be that the user has to change self.num_dataloaders which does not make sense.

Predict also has this bug, but there we don't need the fit check.

Test plan

This is covered by existing tests, for example: test_checkpoint_path_input

Does your PR introduce any breaking changes? If yes, please list them.

None

Before submitting

  • [n/a] Was this discussed/approved via a GitHub issue? (not for typos and docs)
  • 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? (if necessary)
  • [n/a] Did you write any new necessary tests? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
  • Did you list all the breaking changes introduced by this pull request?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG? (not for typos, docs, test updates, or internal minor changes/refactorings)

PR review

  • Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)
  • Check that all items from Before submitting are resolved
  • Make sure the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR
  • Add labels and milestones (and optionally projects) to the PR so it can be classified

cc @carmocca @justusschock @awaelchli @ninginthecloud @Borda

@carmocca carmocca modified the milestones: 1.6, 1.5.x Dec 17, 2021
@carmocca carmocca force-pushed the bugfix/back-to-back-eval branch from 1e77718 to 942f0ec Compare December 17, 2021 16:05
@carmocca carmocca marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2021 16:15
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

Copy link
Contributor

@tchaton tchaton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM !

@carmocca carmocca enabled auto-merge (squash) December 17, 2021 16:47
@mergify mergify bot added the ready PRs ready to be merged label Dec 17, 2021
@carmocca carmocca merged commit 75d96d9 into master Dec 17, 2021
@carmocca carmocca deleted the bugfix/back-to-back-eval branch December 17, 2021 18:20
awaelchli added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2021
awaelchli added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2021
@awaelchli awaelchli modified the milestones: 1.5.x, 1.6 Dec 21, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants