Skip to content

Conversation

@mergennachin
Copy link
Contributor

This is the recommended anyway, so let's gradually start migrating to strict=False

This is the recommended anyway, so let's gradually start migrating to strict=False
@pytorch-bot
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Jul 10, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/12368

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

❌ 10 New Failures, 2 Unrelated Failures

As of commit c16b645 with merge base a1e3d48 (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

BROKEN TRUNK - The following jobs failed but were present on the merge base:

👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Jul 10, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

This PR needs a release notes: label

If your change should be included in the release notes (i.e. would users of this library care about this change?), please use a label starting with release notes:. This helps us keep track and include your important work in the next release notes.

To add a label, you can comment to pytorchbot, for example
@pytorchbot label "release notes: none"

For more information, see
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/wiki/PyTorch-AutoLabel-Bot#why-categorize-for-release-notes-and-how-does-it-work.

Copy link
Contributor

@digantdesai digantdesai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I remember (not sure how accurately) but there were some PTE size bloats reported with strict==false and I am not sure we have a CI to catch that. I think we should validate that and then start embracing this.

cc @GregoryComer - who I think reported this a while back for a quant model.

@mcr229
Copy link
Contributor

mcr229 commented Jul 11, 2025

@digantdesai yea we should probably check that model size isn't bloated. We don't have any CI here that checks for this so right now we would have to do so manually.

@digantdesai
Copy link
Contributor

@digantdesai yea we should probably check that model size isn't bloated. We don't have any CI here that checks for this so right now we would have to do so manually.

Can we add a CI to make sure it doesn't double or something, just a guard against regressing.

@github-actions
Copy link

Looks like this PR hasn't been updated in a while so we're going to go ahead and mark this as Stale.
Feel free to remove the Stale label if you feel this was a mistake.
If you are unable to remove the Stale label please contact a maintainer in order to do so.
If you want the bot to never mark this PR stale again, add the no-stale label.
Stale pull requests will automatically be closed after 30 days of inactivity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PRs inactive for over 60 days label Sep 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. stale PRs inactive for over 60 days

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants