Skip to content

Conversation

SS-JIA
Copy link
Contributor

@SS-JIA SS-JIA commented Oct 15, 2025

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an ExecuteNode would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: D84716451

…s to execute

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an `ExecuteNode` would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: [D84716451](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D84716451/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Oct 15, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/15158

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

❗ 1 Active SEVs

There are 1 currently active SEVs. If your PR is affected, please view them below:

❌ 2 New Failures, 4 Pending, 4 Unrelated Failures

As of commit 14ac9ed with merge base 7349bb5 (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

FLAKY - The following jobs failed but were likely due to flakiness present on trunk:

BROKEN TRUNK - The following job 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.

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.

@meta-cla meta-cla 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 Oct 15, 2025
…ze functions to execute"

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an `ExecuteNode` would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: [D84716451](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D84716451/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
ssjia added 3 commits October 17, 2025 16:06
…ze functions to execute"

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an `ExecuteNode` would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: [D84716451](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D84716451/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…ze functions to execute"

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an `ExecuteNode` would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: [D84716451](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D84716451/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…ze functions to execute"

Title says it all! A few months back, a mechanism was introduced where an `ExecuteNode` would not call an operator's resize function if none of the arguments were updated.

However, this creates a blind spot during testing where the resize function of operators are not tested since the generated operator tests do not modify input sizes.

To address this, add a way to force the resize function to be called during testing.

Differential Revision: [D84716451](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D84716451/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
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. fb-exported meta-exported

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants