Skip to content

fix: use FeatureGroup's Session in nonconcurrency ingestion #3617

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 31, 2023
Merged

fix: use FeatureGroup's Session in nonconcurrency ingestion #3617

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 31, 2023

Conversation

ericpark3
Copy link
Contributor

*Issue #, if available: 3332

*Description of changes: fixing ingestion to use FeatureGroup's Session in non-concurrency ingestion

*Testing done: Unit & Integration

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

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I certify that the changes I am introducing will be backward compatible, and I have discussed concerns about this, if any, with the Python SDK team
  • I used the commit message format described in CONTRIBUTING
  • I have passed the region in to all S3 and STS clients that I've initialized as part of this change.
  • I have updated any necessary documentation, including READMEs and API docs (if appropriate)

Tests

  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if appropriate)
  • I have added unit and/or integration tests as appropriate to ensure backward compatibility of the changes
  • I have checked that my tests are not configured for a specific region or account (if appropriate)
  • I have used 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.

@ericpark3 ericpark3 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 27, 2023 18:45
@ericpark3 ericpark3 requested review from trajanikant and removed request for a team January 27, 2023 18:45
Copy link
Contributor

@trajanikant trajanikant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/bot run all

@trajanikant trajanikant self-assigned this Jan 30, 2023
@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-unit-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-local-mode-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-pr
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-notebook-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-slow-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

Copy link
Contributor

@trajanikant trajanikant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/bot run unit-tests, slow-tests

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-unit-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 30, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #3617 (e1f435d) into master (1fa2377) will decrease coverage by 0.42%.
The diff coverage is 88.43%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3617      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.17%   88.76%   -0.42%     
==========================================
  Files         204      227      +23     
  Lines       18979    22189    +3210     
==========================================
+ Hits        16924    19695    +2771     
- Misses       2055     2494     +439     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/sagemaker/dataset_definition/inputs.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sagemaker/huggingface/model.py 89.87% <ø> (ø)
src/sagemaker/lineage/_utils.py 100.00% <ø> (+12.50%) ⬆️
...agemaker/model_monitor/clarify_model_monitoring.py 89.84% <ø> (-5.09%) ⬇️
src/sagemaker/model_monitor/dataset_format.py 72.72% <ø> (-2.28%) ⬇️
src/sagemaker/model_monitor/model_monitoring.py 67.43% <ø> (+0.66%) ⬆️
src/sagemaker/model_monitor/monitoring_alert.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sagemaker/pipeline.py 85.33% <ø> (ø)
src/sagemaker/processing.py 94.25% <ø> (-0.09%) ⬇️
src/sagemaker/pytorch/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 105 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sagemaker-python-sdk-slow-tests
  • Commit ID: e1f435d
  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants