Add lora test workflow (WIP) #9058
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
devops
ltoniazzi
force-pushed
the
testing/add-lora-tests-workflow
branch
from
6e1237e to
1413c49
Compare
| -DLLAMA_CURL=ON \ | ||
| -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=${{ matrix.build_type }} \ | ||
| -DLLAMA_SANITIZE_${{ matrix.sanitizer }}=ON ; | ||
| cmake --build build --config ${{ matrix.build_type }} -j $(nproc) --target llama-server |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should I remove this line and the cmake dependency above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or should I use it to add lora tests that involve the server?
Co-authored-by: Xuan Son Nguyen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Xuan Son Nguyen <[email protected]>
ltoniazzi
force-pushed
the
testing/add-lora-tests-workflow
branch
from
ce6dd7a to
42f65b0
Compare
ltoniazzi
force-pushed
the
testing/add-lora-tests-workflow
branch
from
7e64e01 to
fc6abde
Compare
|
@ngxson Hey 😃 ! Are you able to take a look a this PR next week? |
|
Sorry for the delay. This is not my current priority, but I'll see if I have time next week. |
|
@ngxson do you have time to look at this, or can you point me to another maintainer that can help here? |
|
I think we don't really need this anymore, as this is not a very important part and running test script locally works fine in most cases (we don't have much changes related to lora anyway) We also don't want to add too much workflows to the CI. Every 1-2 minutes added to the CI will make it slow overtime, let alone the build step of this script that can easily take 5 minutes of the CI. So I think it's better not to continue implementing this for now. |
|
@ngxson Yes no problem! Should we merge only the modification in the test script to clone from a specific commit, so there is not risk in with updates to the HF test models repo? (See updated diff) |
ltoniazzi
changed the title
ltoniazzi
changed the title
|
Yes that looks good. Btw next time you can use add a new PR (if you want). The current PR can be kept as draft for reference in the future. For open-source projects, it's common to close a PR or to keep a non-functioning PR as draft. |
|
Yes, let's do that! Closed as not planning to implement the CI workflow |
ltoniazzi
changed the title
Context
Partially solving Issue #8708.
Running the tests introduced in PR #8957 in a new git workflow (inspired by
.github/workflows/server.yml).Todo
Test if workflow runs successfully.Should I add a test for the feature in server : add lora hotswap endpoint #8857 too?Do we want to refactor test models storage in HF to 1 architecture per model repo? This is an example of HuggingFace approach.Checks