Skip to content

Call configure_model from LightningCLI #19111

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Call configure_model from LightningCLI #19111

wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

ioangatop
Copy link
Contributor

@ioangatop ioangatop commented Dec 4, 2023 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

What does this PR do?

Fixes #19110

Before submitting
  • Was this discussed/agreed 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)
  • 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 minor internal changes/refactors)

PR review

Anyone in the community is welcome to review the PR.
Before you start reviewing, make sure you have read the review guidelines. In short, see the following bullet-list:

Reviewer checklist
  • 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

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pytorch-lightning--19111.org.readthedocs.build/en/19111/

@github-actions github-actions bot added the pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package label Dec 4, 2023
@ioangatop
Copy link
Contributor Author

ioangatop commented Dec 4, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Looking at the following, probably the solution needs to be adjusted:

pytorch-lightning/src/lightning/pytorch/trainer/call.py

Lines 99 to 109 in 520c1e4

def _call_configure_model(trainer: "pl.Trainer") -> None:
# legacy hook
if is_overridden("configure_sharded_model", trainer.lightning_module):
with trainer.strategy.model_sharded_context():
_call_lightning_module_hook(trainer, "configure_sharded_model")
# we don't normally check for this before calling the hook. it is done here to avoid instantiating the context
# managers
if is_overridden("configure_model", trainer.lightning_module):
with trainer.strategy.tensor_init_context(), trainer.strategy.model_sharded_context(), trainer.precision_plugin.module_init_context(): # noqa: E501
_call_lightning_module_hook(trainer, "configure_model")

The issue is that the above excepts the trainer which is not yet initialised.

Now the configure_model will be called twice (like if we have the model initialisation both in __init__ and in the configure_model) 🤔 - maybe it works but idk if this behaviour is desirable

However, it does get called here directly:

pytorch-lightning/src/lightning/pytorch/core/saving.py

Lines 161 to 162 in 3cbc14e

if is_overridden("configure_model", obj):
obj.configure_model()

Borda
Borda previously approved these changes Dec 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 13, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79%. Comparing base (eb082b2) to head (14ed93f).
Report is 19 commits behind head on master.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (eb082b2) and HEAD (14ed93f). Click for more details.

HEAD has 753 uploads less than BASE
Flag BASE (eb082b2) HEAD (14ed93f)
cpu 192 24
python 24 3
lightning_fabric 38 0
pytest 99 0
python3.10 48 6
lightning 121 15
python3.11 48 6
gpu 3 0
python3.12.7 72 9
pytorch2.1 24 6
pytorch_lightning 36 9
pytest-full 96 24
pytorch2.2.2 12 3
pytorch2.3 12 3
pytorch2.5 12 3
pytorch2.4.1 12 3
pytorch2.5.1 12 3
pytorch2.6 12 3
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #19111     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage      88%      79%     -9%     
=========================================
  Files         267      264      -3     
  Lines       23364    23310     -54     
=========================================
- Hits        20467    18355   -2112     
- Misses       2897     4955   +2058

@ioangatop
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Borda thanks for the ✅ - is there anyone we can tag that can review any maybe merge/resolve the issue? 🙏

@gitguardian GitGuardian
Copy link

gitguardian bot commented Jan 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
While these secrets were previously flagged, we no longer have a reference to the
specific commits where they were detected. Once a secret has been leaked into a git
repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.

🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

@ioangatop
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Borda any update for this? thank you

@Borda
Copy link
Contributor

Borda commented Mar 14, 2025

@lantiga mind have a look? :)

@stale Stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 16, 2025

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. If you need further help see our docs: https://lightning.ai/docs/pytorch/latest/generated/CONTRIBUTING.html#pull-request or ask the assistance of a core contributor here or on Discord. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the won't fix This will not be worked on label Apr 16, 2025
@stale stale bot removed the won't fix This will not be worked on label Apr 17, 2025
@stale Stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 19, 2025

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. If you need further help see our docs: https://lightning.ai/docs/pytorch/latest/generated/CONTRIBUTING.html#pull-request or ask the assistance of a core contributor here or on Discord. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the won't fix This will not be worked on label Jul 19, 2025
@Borda
Copy link
Contributor

Borda commented Aug 19, 2025

@mauvilsa mind have look, pls

@stale stale bot removed the won't fix This will not be worked on label Aug 19, 2025
mauvilsa
mauvilsa suggested changes Aug 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@mauvilsa mauvilsa left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't have experience with configure_model so don't trust blindly my comments.

Having said that, from what I understand the default implementation of configure_model() from here does nothing. So calling it always shouldn't be a problem.

However, I see that this call is being added in _add_configure_optimizers_method_to_model() which will only apply for cases in which the selection of optimizers are automatically added. If it doesn't work in all cases, then I wouldn't consider this a good solution. Maybe it should be called before this line?

pytorch-lightning/src/lightning/pytorch/cli.py

Line 583 in ff64a92

self._add_configure_optimizers_method_to_model(self.subcommand)

@ioangatop does this proposed change make sense to you?

Apart from that single line change, would this be possible to test? A new unit test specific for this would be great to actually know that it actually works.

@Borda
Copy link
Contributor

Borda commented Sep 2, 2025

@ioangatop lets add a test

@Borda Borda added the waiting on author Waiting on user action, correction, or update label Sep 2, 2025
@Borda Borda self-requested a review September 2, 2025 12:56
@Borda Borda dismissed their stale review September 2, 2025 12:56

waiting for a test

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@williamFalcon williamFalcon Awaiting requested review from williamFalcon

@awaelchli awaelchli Awaiting requested review from awaelchli

@carmocca carmocca Awaiting requested review from carmocca

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

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

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

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

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

1 more reviewer

@mauvilsa mauvilsa mauvilsa requested changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package waiting on author Waiting on user action, correction, or update

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Hook configure_model is not called from the CLI

3 participants

@ioangatop @Borda @mauvilsa