fix exponential op #58029
fix exponential op #58029
Conversation
|
你的PR提交成功，感谢你对开源项目的贡献! |
|
Sorry to inform you that 0bf972d's CIs have passed for more than 7 days. To prevent PR conflicts, you need to re-run all CIs manually. |
test/legacy_test/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
| @@ -1387,6 +1387,10 @@ foreach(IR_OP_TEST ${NEW_IR_OP_TESTS}) | |||
| set_tests_properties( | |||
| ${IR_OP_TEST} PROPERTIES ENVIRONMENT | |||
| "FLAGS_NEW_IR_OPTEST_WHITE_LIST=True") | |||
| if(${IR_OP_TEST} STREQUAL "test_exponential_op") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
没有扩展性，建议改为列表实现，类似 #55857
已补充 |
test/legacy_test/op_test.py
Outdated
| @@ -1439,6 +1439,8 @@ def _check_ir_output(self, place, program, feed_map, fetch_list, outs): | |||
| check_method = lambda x, y, z: np.testing.assert_allclose( | |||
| x, y, err_msg=z, atol=1e-6, rtol=1e-6 | |||
| ) | |||
| if os.getenv("FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK", None): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
这个flag为什么和上面CMake里设置的不一样？而且他能生效？
There was a problem hiding this comment.
已修改 这里感觉应该单测失败才对
There was a problem hiding this comment.
我怀疑这种写法是不是有问题，它会不会总是生效的？可以验证下这个flag对别的单测是不是也起效果了
There was a problem hiding this comment.
确实有问题,if os.getenv("FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK", None)只会检查这个环境变量是否存在，如果是0的话也会执行if后面的逻辑，现在改为if os.getenv("FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK", None)==“True”只有得到环境变量为“True”才会执行
xingmingyyj
force-pushed
the
fix_exponential_op
branch
from
b137629 to
e356fab
Compare
* fix exponential op * 更新 op_compat.yaml * fix parser * 更新 utils.cc * fix_exponential_op * add flag FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK * add flag FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK * add flag FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK * add flag FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK * add flag FLAGS_FLAGS_NEW_IR_NO_CHECK * Update new_ir_op_test_no_check_list * Update op_test.py * Update op_test.py * Update CMakeLists.txt * fix getenv
PR types
Others
PR changes
Others
Description
exponential op的输出值具有随机性，新Ir下的测试逻辑是在旧Ir下运行一次op，新Ir下运行一次op，比较两者的输出结果。因为exponential op的两次输出不相同所以现有的测试逻辑不适用。