-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Revert #2560 #2564
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
Revert #2560 #2564
Conversation
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
@verdimrc Can I have the zip file to test? |
Sample source dir. In the processor, use |
@@ -349,12 +349,12 @@ def test_local_processing_sklearn(sagemaker_local_session_no_local_code, sklearn | |||
|
|||
job_description = sklearn_processor.latest_job.describe() | |||
|
|||
assert len(job_description["ProcessingInputs"]) == 2 | |||
assert len(job_description["ProcessingInputs"]) == 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’m trying to understand why there is now one more ProcessingInputs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi, apology, my reply went to the PR comment instead of this area.
The test for the original sklearn processor creates these 2x input channels:
/opt/ml/processing/inputs
=> input data/opt/ml/processing/input/code
=> to placedummy_script.py
which is the container entrypoint.
The new sklearn processor creates these 3x input channels:
/opt/ml/processing/inputs
=> input data/opt/ml/processing/input/code
=> to placesourcedir.tar.gz
which containsdummy_script.py
/opt/ml/processing/input/entrypoint
=> to place bootstrap logicrunproc.py
which is the container entrypoint. See this.
hi Ahsan, the extra input is for the sourcedir.tar.gz. The original code
input (from Script processor) is used for the bootstrapping script.
Regards,
Verdi
…On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, 3:49 am Ahsan Khan, ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In tests/integ/test_local_mode.py
<#2564 (comment)>
:
> @@ -349,12 +349,12 @@ def test_local_processing_sklearn(sagemaker_local_session_no_local_code, sklearn
job_description = sklearn_processor.latest_job.describe()
- assert len(job_description["ProcessingInputs"]) == 2
+ assert len(job_description["ProcessingInputs"]) == 3
I’m trying to understand why there is now one more ProcessingInputs?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2564 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR3PLI5TDG2SUPIYTH7HSDT33NUFANCNFSM5BXEYGOQ>
.
|
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Hi guys, any news on this one? We are really keen to make use of these changes. |
This PR fixes the only symptom. However, the root-cause is still there: This will cause two consequences: (1) pipeline still doesn’t support A new PR #2633 has been opened to directly addresses the root cause. |
(Pushed to draft in favour of #2664) |
The base branch was changed.
e0b9d38
to
2beb91e
Compare
Hi @ahsan-z-khan, this PR is not needed anymore. |
Issue #, if available:
Description of changes:
Testing done: unit, integ.
Merge Checklist
Put an
x
in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.General
Tests
unique_name_from_base
to create resource names in integ tests (if appropriate)By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.