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

Sort keys and fold resubmit steps by virtue of dflow #269

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

zjgemi
Copy link
Collaborator

@zjgemi zjgemi commented Oct 25, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced workflow management with a new approach for handling workflow steps and resubmission keys.
    • Streamlined error handling to improve workflow integrity during resubmission.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved clarity and efficiency in the workflow management system.
  • Tests

    • Updated tests to align with new workflow logic, replacing old key folding tests with resubmission key validation.

zjgemi and others added 2 commits October 25, 2024 14:52
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 25, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve significant modifications to the submit.py file in the dpgen2/entrypoint directory, including the removal of several functions related to step management and the introduction of a new method for handling workflow steps. The pyproject.toml file has been updated to reflect a new minimum version requirement for the pydflow dependency. Additionally, the tests/entrypoint/test_submit.py file has been revised to replace old testing logic with new tests that validate the updated workflow management system.

Changes

File Change Summary
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py Removed functions: successful_step_keys, get_superop, fold_keys. Updated get_resubmit_keys logic. Modified resubmit_concurrent_learning function. Refined error handling for workflow integrity.
pyproject.toml Updated pydflow dependency version from >=1.8.95 to >=1.8.97.
tests/entrypoint/test_submit.py Replaced fold_keys with get_resubmit_keys. Introduced new mock classes. Updated tests to validate new workflow structure. Removed old test for fold_keys.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant WorkflowManager as WM
    participant WorkflowStep as WS

    User->>WM: Submit Workflow
    WM->>WS: Query Workflow Steps
    WS-->>WM: Return Steps and Statuses
    WM->>WM: Construct Resubmission Keys
    WM->>User: Return Resubmission Keys
Loading

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 5

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
pyproject.toml (1)

20-20: Document version requirement rationale.

Consider adding a comment explaining which pydflow features or fixes from 1.8.97 are required for the new workflow management system.

Example:

-	     'pydflow>=1.8.97',
+	     'pydflow>=1.8.97',  # Required for improved workflow step management (sorting keys and folding resubmit steps)
tests/entrypoint/test_submit.py (2)

962-967: Consider simplifying the MockedArgoStep class.

The id attribute is currently set to the same value as key. Since they're identical, you could potentially remove the id attribute and use key throughout the code, or document why both are needed.


969-998: Add documentation for test data structure.

The test data (steps and expected_folded_keys) would benefit from docstrings explaining:

  • The workflow structure being simulated
  • The meaning of different step phases
  • The relationship between step keys and their folded representation

Also applies to: 1024-1050

dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py (2)

814-819: Simplify the list comprehension for all_steps.

The list comprehension used to create all_steps can be simplified for better readability by placing it on a single line.

Consider refactoring as:

-    all_steps = [
-        step
-        for step in wf_info.get_step(sort_by_generation=True)
-        if step.key is not None
-    ]
+    all_steps = [step for step in wf_info.get_step(sort_by_generation=True) if step.key is not None]

892-893: Clarify the comment for better understanding.

The comment # reuse the super OP iif all steps within it are reused uses iif, which might be a typo or unclear to readers.

Update the comment for clarity:

-            # reuse the super OP iif all steps within it are reused
+            # Reuse the super OP if and only if all steps within it are reused
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 35e0b97 and 8e472ee.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py (3 hunks)
  • pyproject.toml (1 hunks)
  • tests/entrypoint/test_submit.py (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
pyproject.toml (1)

20-20: LGTM! Verify minimum version requirement.

The version bump from 1.8.95 to 1.8.97 aligns with the changes in workflow management.

Let's verify if this is the minimum required version:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the version requirements by checking the changes in the codebase.


Let me check the changes in submit.py to understand the relationship between the version bump and step management changes.


Based on the code changes and commit messages, I can now generate the final response:

Version bump is required for new dflow step management features

The version bump to pydflow 1.8.97 is necessary as the code changes rely on new dflow features:

  • Using sort_by_generation=True in get_step queries
  • Improved step key folding and resubmission functionality using dflow's native capabilities
  • Parent-child step relationship querying via parent_id
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check pydflow changelog or release notes for features/fixes between 1.8.95 and 1.8.97
# that might be related to workflow step management

# Search for relevant changes in the repository
rg -i "workflow|step|resubmit|sort" --type md

Length of output: 13017


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for changes related to step management and resubmit functionality
rg -A 3 "resubmit|step_keys|successful_step" --type py

# Check git history for the version bump commit message
git log -p -- pyproject.toml | grep -A 5 "pydflow"

Length of output: 20802


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check changes in submit.py related to step management
git log -p -- "**/submit.py" | grep -B 5 -A 10 "step"

# Check if there are any related changes in the changelog or release notes
fd "CHANGELOG|HISTORY|RELEASE" --type f

Length of output: 23752

dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py (2)

895-895: Verify the correctness of the reused_keys concatenation.

Using sum to concatenate lists can be less efficient and may cause issues with large lists. Ensure that reused_keys is correctly formed.

Consider using list comprehension or itertools.chain for efficiency:

import itertools
reused_keys = list(itertools.chain.from_iterable(reused_folded_keys.values()))

Alternatively, if performance is not an issue, and clarity is preferred, you may keep the current approach.


Line range hint 814-895: Overall assessment: Good integration of folding mechanism.

The introduced folding mechanism improves the resubmission process by organizing steps more effectively. The code changes are well-integrated and align with the workflow requirements.

tests/entrypoint/test_submit.py Show resolved Hide resolved
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py Show resolved Hide resolved
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py Show resolved Hide resolved
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py Show resolved Hide resolved
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 28 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.32%. Comparing base (35e0b97) to head (8e472ee).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
dpgen2/entrypoint/submit.py 0.00% 28 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #269      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.62%   84.32%   +0.70%     
==========================================
  Files         104      104              
  Lines        6057     6003      -54     
==========================================
- Hits         5065     5062       -3     
+ Misses        992      941      -51     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@wanghan-iapcm wanghan-iapcm merged commit 067c60f into deepmodeling:master Oct 29, 2024
9 checks passed
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.

2 participants