Can you elaborate on how this change is bringing "alignment on the modifications to the operators across language bindings"? Seems like this PR is generating a hash from the scala files instead of the backend apis, how would this benefit other language bindings? Hao
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for your input, I want to reiterate that this work is not to > burden anyone but to bring alignment on the modifications to the operators > across language bindings. I agree with Marco/Qing and we'll start off as a > nightly runs and identify changes, we can discuss further later after we > gather some data. > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Jun for your clarification. I think one of the advantages for > MXNet > > is it's language binding. Although the number of customers using Scala is > > great less than Python, it is still one important language we need to > > support. > > > > About the first question, I would say we all in. At least all breaking > > changes should let all language binding maintainers notified. Then we > make > > the changes to make sure we have stable support to the customers. The > > reason for Scala build failure could be many, so we need to diagnose the > > problem and see if we need to collaborate and solve the problems > together. > > I don't think the other language maintainers and backend must take the > > responsibilities to diagnose a problems of a language they may not > familiar > > with. > > > > 2. It depends differently case by case, we cannot bring a unique time for > > different failures we have. If you mean the operator check, it could > cause > > you (time to build scalapkg) + (30 seconds to change the code) + (time to > > run the CI to make sure it worked) + (send a PR to make that change on > > master branch). This update should be done by the Scala developers for > sure. > > > > 3. If there is a nightly build failure, maybe we can think of checking > > that on a weekly basis. Spend 15 mins every week to review the operator > > changes so we don't miss any important points. > > > > Thanks, > > Qing > > > > > > > > On 6/20/18, 9:57 PM, "Jun Wu" <wujun....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We should reach an agreement on the responsibility/ownership before > > moving > > forward. > > > > 1. Who will take the ownership of fixing Scala build failure if an > > operator > > is changed/added in C++? > > 2. What is the expected turn around time of fixing the scala build > > failure. > > 3. What if we are short of resources of fixing the scala build > > failure? How > > do we deal with the failing nightly CI every night? > > > > With all being said, there is at least one thing that must be clear, > we > > certainly don't want to put the extra burden on the backend > developers. > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:39 PM Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Thank you all for your feedback. This changes do influence a lot on > > the > > > PRs related to operator changes. I will take what Marco proposed to > > place > > > that in the nightly build rather than every CI we runs. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Qing > > > > > > On 6/20/18, 8:40 PM, "Hao Jin" <hjjn.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think we should keep this hash check thing. As Qing > > stated > > > before > > > on this thread, if there's any change in documentation the hash > > value > > > is > > > also changed and then flagged as a problem, how will that break > > any > > > user's > > > code? I would go for something like Marco's proposal: moving > > this to an > > > asynchronous check. > > > At this very moment, I've got 4 PRs that are all related to > > "operator > > > changes", adopting this kind of method is adding extra work for > > me and > > > every other contributor whose work involves changes on operator > > code, > > > and I > > > don't think it's a reasonable kind of extra work like tracking > > PRs on > > > JIRA. > > > Hao > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Naveen Swamy < > > mnnav...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Agreed, for new APIs we can turn into a nightly job and > report > > on > > > dev@. > > > > The > > > > goal here is not to burden anyone but to catch changes on the > > backend > > > > before it propagates and break user's code and co-ordinate > > changes > > > across > > > > language bindings which IMO is essential, so I would like to > > keep for > > > > changes on the existing API. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think we should go with an asychronous approach using a > > nightly > > > job > > > > that > > > > > detects the changes and reports them accordingly. We could > > then > > > send out > > > > a > > > > > report if there is a mismatch. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the already stated points that we should not > > put the > > > burden > > > > of > > > > > adding frontend API bindings to somebody who adds a Backend > > > function. > > > > This > > > > > is not scalable and rather poses a risk in reduced quality > or > > > increased > > > > > review overhead. > > > > > > > > > > The sparse support is the perfect example. I don't know if > > haibin > > > knows > > > > > Scala, but he would have had to make the entire mapping for > > Scala > > > without > > > > > being very familiar with it (sorry if I'm wrong on this > > haibin, > > > it's just > > > > > an example). Imagine we do this for even more APIs - we > would > > > basically > > > > > block ourselves because everyone who makes a change in the > > Backend > > > has to > > > > > know a dozen languages. > > > > > > > > > > While in a few cases it might be just a few lines, I'd > guess > > that > > > > > especially for new operators it would require a proper > > design, > > > coding and > > > > > review to map an API to the frontend languages. This should > > rather > > > be > > > > done > > > > > by an expert in my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > We could define it as a requirement for a release that all > > APIs > > > have had > > > > to > > > > > be transfered before a release can be cut (We already have > > it as > > > > > requirement that all nightly jobs have to pass anyways). > > > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > > Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 20. Juni > > 2018, > > > 19:50: > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the concerns here. However the problem here > > is that > > > since > > > > > the > > > > > > Scala APIs are generated using Macros and we do not(may > not > > > ever) have > > > > > full > > > > > > test coverage on each of the APIs, we will not know for > > example > > > if an > > > > > > operator/API changes on the backend and that propagates > to > > Scala > > > users, > > > > > > their code might very well fail. So what we are trying > > here is > > > to find > > > > > out > > > > > > early if there is an operator/API change and avoid > breaking > > > user's > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there is value in co-ordinating addition of APIs > > across > > > > bindings, > > > > > > as an example the sparse APIs introduced was(still not) > > exposed > > > to > > > > Scala > > > > > > users. This begs the question of how do we co-ordinate > such > > > changes? > > > > > Should > > > > > > we turn addition of new APIs also as warnings ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we shouldn't fail on documentation change, > > may we > > > should > > > > > turn > > > > > > that into warnings and make sure to pick it up on the > Scala > > > APIs, this > > > > is > > > > > > low risk since it documentation does not change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Open for suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:32 PM, YiZhi Liu < > > eazhi....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
