consolidate guard_or_x and definitely_x#152463
Conversation
[ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/152463
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❗ 1 Active SEVsThere are 1 currently active SEVs. If your PR is affected, please view them below: ❌ 3 Cancelled Jobs, 2 Unrelated FailuresAs of commit 523a84f with merge base a3123dd ( CANCELLED JOBS - The following jobs were cancelled. Please retry:
FLAKY - The following job failed but was likely due to flakiness present on trunk:
UNSTABLE - The following job is marked as unstable, possibly due to flakiness on trunk:
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
|
This is BC breaking right? @albanD is there a process we need to go through to make this change? At the very least this change should be included in the release notes of the next version bump. |
|
@laithsakka in the meantime can you include a summary of the differences and why they don't matter in the PR summary? |
aorenste
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally LGTM but Bob's right about the BC concerns.
|
I would check on github if there are users using this out of core: https://github.com/search?q=%2Fdefinitely_true%5C%28%2F+AND+NOT+%2Fis_definitely_false%2F+-path%3A%2F%5Etorch%5C%2F_functorch%5C%2F_aot_autograd%5C%2F%2F+-path%3A%2F%5Etorch%5C%2Ffx%5C%2Fexperimental%5C%2F%2F+language%3APython&type=code&l=Python If there are, then you should go through the standard cycle: deprecate for 2 releases then delete. |
I went throw the usages nothing other copies of torch code. |
|
@pytorchbot merge |
|
This PR needs to be approved by an authorized maintainer before merge. |
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Merge failedReason: 3 jobs have failed, first few of them are: inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.10-gcc9-sm86 / build, inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.12-gcc9-sm86 / build, inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.13-gcc9-sm86 / build Details for Dev Infra teamRaised by workflow job |
|
@pytorchbot merge -i |
Merge startedYour change will be merged while ignoring the following 5 checks: BC Lint / bc_linter, pull / unstable-linux-focal-cuda12.6-py3.10-gcc11-sm89-xfail / build, inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.10-gcc9-sm86 / build, inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.12-gcc9-sm86 / build, inductor / unit-test / cuda12.6-py3.13-gcc9-sm86 / build Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
definitely_true is almost same as guard_or_false, the potential differences are not meaningful to a degree that justify the
existence of both. same for definitely_false, it can be expressed with guard_or_true and guard_or_false.
cc @ezyang @SherlockNoMad @EikanWang @jgong5 @wenzhe-nrv @voznesenskym @penguinwu @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @jiayisunx @ipiszy @chenyang78 @kadeng @muchulee8 @amjames @chauhang @aakhundov