Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2023. It is now read-only.

[v1.x] Work around two pylint false positives in mxnet/io/io.py #18269

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[v1.x] Work around two pylint false positives in mxnet/io/io.py #18269

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nickguletskii
Copy link
Contributor

Description

With the latest pylint, lint checks fail due to the following errors:

************* Module mxnet.io.io
python/mxnet/io/io.py:229:15: E1102: self.next is not callable (not-callable)
python/mxnet/io/io.py:833:27: E1102: self.next is not callable (not-callable)

Original CI log: http://jenkins.mxnet-ci.amazon-ml.com/blue/organizations/jenkins/mxnet-validation%2Fsanity/detail/PR-18268/2/pipeline

You may reproduce this by running python3 -m pylint --rcfile=./ci/other/pylintrc --ignore-patterns=".*\.so$$,.*\.dll$$,.*\.dylib$$" python/mxnet/io/io.py.

This PR simply disables the rule that is giving false positives on these lines.

Checklist

Essentials

Please feel free to remove inapplicable items for your PR.

  • The PR title starts with [MXNET-$JIRA_ID], where $JIRA_ID refers to the relevant JIRA issue created (except PRs with tiny changes)
  • Changes are complete (i.e. I finished coding on this PR)
  • All changes have test coverage:
  • Unit tests are added for small changes to verify correctness (e.g. adding a new operator)
  • Nightly tests are added for complicated/long-running ones (e.g. changing distributed kvstore)
  • Build tests will be added for build configuration changes (e.g. adding a new build option with NCCL)
  • Code is well-documented:
  • For user-facing API changes, API doc string has been updated.
  • For new C++ functions in header files, their functionalities and arguments are documented.
  • For new examples, README.md is added to explain the what the example does, the source of the dataset, expected performance on test set and reference to the original paper if applicable
  • Check the API doc at https://mxnet-ci-doc.s3-accelerate.dualstack.amazonaws.com/PR-$PR_ID/$BUILD_ID/index.html
  • To the best of my knowledge, examples are either not affected by this change, or have been fixed to be compatible with this change

Changes

  • Disable linter checks where they are giving false positives

Comments

  • If this change is a backward incompatible change, why must this change be made.
  • Interesting edge cases to note here

@nickguletskii nickguletskii requested a review from szha as a code owner May 9, 2020 14:27
@mxnet-bot
Copy link

Hey @nickguletskii , Thanks for submitting the PR
All tests are already queued to run once. If tests fail, you can trigger one or more tests again with the following commands:

  • To trigger all jobs: @mxnet-bot run ci [all]
  • To trigger specific jobs: @mxnet-bot run ci [job1, job2]

CI supported jobs: [centos-gpu, miscellaneous, clang, unix-gpu, windows-cpu, windows-gpu, edge, website, unix-cpu, sanity, centos-cpu]

Note:
Only following 3 categories can trigger CI :PR Author, MXNet Committer, Jenkins Admin.
All CI tests must pass before the PR can be merged.

@nickguletskii nickguletskii mentioned this pull request May 9, 2020
Open
10 tasks
@nickguletskii nickguletskii changed the title Work around two pylint false positives in mxnet/io/io.py [v1.x] Work around two pylint false positives in mxnet/io/io.py May 9, 2020
@nickguletskii
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mxnet-bot run ci [centos-gpu]

@mxnet-bot
Copy link

Jenkins CI successfully triggered : [centos-gpu]

@leezu
Copy link
Contributor

leezu commented May 10, 2020

It's better to fix the root-cause of the issue by backporting

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/50f7f0a92d3efd36a4432df32254e9cf9e864b4c/ci/docker/install/requirements#L36-L37

@ChaiBapchya
Copy link
Contributor

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/80baab83775d54b1805a72254992a0fa87bd2f49/ci/docker/install/requirements#L30-L31

This has already been resolved in my PR #18220

18e2014

@nickguletskii please rebase.

@nickguletskii
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ChaiBapchya Sorry, didn't know about your PR. It seems that it has only been merged into v1.7.x, but not v1.x. Could you please create a second one for the v1.x branch? Or should I update this PR/create a new one instead?

@ChaiBapchya
Copy link
Contributor

ChaiBapchya commented May 10, 2020 •
edited
Loading

It's just that we have so many branches to actively maintain. Tough to track all the actively maintained branches.
master, 1.x, 1.7.x, 1.6.x...

Creating separate cherry-pick. Plz close this one. Thanks @nickguletskii

@ChaiBapchya ChaiBapchya mentioned this pull request May 10, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@szha szha Awaiting requested review from szha szha is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@nickguletskii @mxnet-bot @leezu @ChaiBapchya