Hi Qing, What is the exact risk of changing / adding operators? could you provide an example? I also feel the way you proposed is little bit too heavy to developers, and not quite friendly to new contributors. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I appreciate the effort and understand the motivation. However, I'm > concerned that it basically means merging operator PRs becomes sequential. > Developers who work on operators have to update their PR every time a new > operator is merged to master, the burden becomes significant if there're 20 > ONNX/sparse operators to add and many PRs are submitted/reviewed in > parallel. > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> wrote: > > > Hi Haibin, > > > > The operator change is any changes on the operator on C++ side. Trigger > > the check failed? > > - change the documentation of operator in C Yes > > - change the documentation such as README.md No > > - add/remove/modify operator Yes > > - add/remove/modify operator parameter Yes > > > > Thanks, > > Qing > > > > On 6/20/18, 10:01 AM, "Haibin Lin" <haibin.lin....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate what you mean by operator change? Does it check the > > operator interface? Would updated operator documentation fail the > > check? > > Would adding a new operator fail this check? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Macro, > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback! I believe this should not be a block for > > > contributor in most of the cases. > > > Firstly, this would only be triggered if there is an operator changes > > > (Only general operators). > > > Secondly, it is simple to go through. Just need to change 1 line of > > code > > > would make the PR passed. However it do requires contributor to do > > this or > > > the Scalatest will fail. I have made the error message instructive > > that > > > would help the contributor to dive in and make the changes. > > > > > > I also updated the design document to explain in detail. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Qing > > > > > > > > > On 6/19/18, 12:09 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > .INVALID> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Okay, thanks for elaborating. I definitely see your point there > > and we > > > definitely don't want these changes to pile up. > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about this and won't stand in the way, I > > just > > > want to > > > express my concern that this could lead to people having to > > touch all > > > language interfaces although they might not familiar with them > > at all. > > > On > > > the other hand we got enough contributors who could help them > > then > > > before > > > the PR can get merged. So either way works, but I just wanted to > > > highlight > > > that this could make it harder to make changes in the backend for > > > people > > > who are not familiar with our frontend API languages. If we got > > enough > > > people who could actively support our contributors in such a > > case, we > > > should be totally fine with blocking a PR until the APIs have > > been > > > adapted. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:58 AM Naveen Swamy < > > mnnav...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Marco, > > > > > > > > Qing and I are working together on this. The idea is that we > > fail > > > the build > > > > if there is a operator change on the backend and have not > > synced to > > > the > > > > Scala API. We want to catch this before breaking the user's > > code > > > which will > > > > be a pretty bad experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Qing, > > > > > > > > > > thank you for working on improving the compatibility of our > > APIs! > > > > > > > > > > Your linked proposal does not describe the mentioned > > FILEHASH. > > > Could you > > > > > elaborate a bit? Would this be a hash of the entire file, > > some hash > > > > created > > > > > based on the signature of the underlying C++ methods or > > maybe a > > > different > > > > > approach? > > > > > > > > > > Also, at which step would developers be notified of the > > change? I'd > > > > propose > > > > > that we make this check a nightly job to prevent it from > > blocking > > > a PR > > > > and > > > > > forcing contributors who are not familiar with Scala having > > to > > > make a > > > > > change to the Scala package. This would allow us to follow up > > > > > asynchronously but still provide actionable events that one > > can be > > > > > subscribed to. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:00 AM Qing Lan < > > lanking...@live.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am one of the maintainer for MXNet Scala package. > > Currently I > > > am > > > > > > building up a hash-check system on the generated API > > through C. > > > The PR > > > > > is > > > > > > in this URL: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11239 > > > > > > A file named FILEHASH will be added to the Scala that > > created > > > the MD5 > > > > > > string of the generated API document. It will check the > > > signature of > > > > all > > > > > > the operators during Scala CI testing. The reason I am > > doing > > > this is to > > > > > > make sure Scala developers will always be reminded if > > there is an > > > > > operator > > > > > > name/argument changes happened in different PRs. More > > detailed > > > info > > > > > > explained in here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > > > MXNet+Scala+API+Usability+Improvement > > > > > > > > > > > > Pros: > > > > > > This method will always help us keep backwards > > compatibility of > > > > operators > > > > > > for Scala > > > > > > Cons: > > > > > > Require update on the FILEHASH with new contents when > > there is an > > > > > operator > > > > > > change. Developers who changed the operator should `make > > > scalapkg` to > > > > > > update that file. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please leave any thoughts you may have for this design and > > feel > > > free to > > > > > > review the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Qing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- Yizhi Liu DMLC member Amazon Web Services Vancouver, Canada
