8000 [Set] Handle exception in ConstantVariable operation by guilhermeleobas · Pull Request #152987 · pytorch/pytorch · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

[Set] Handle exception in ConstantVariable operation #152987

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed

Conversation

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link
pytorch-bot bot commented May 6, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/152987

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ No Failures

As of commit 1e1de9e with merge base 064f4c1 (image):
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

[ghstack-poisoned]
@guilhermeleobas guilhermeleobas marked this pull request as ready for review May 7, 2025 14:12
explanation="Encountered exception when attempting to constant fold.",
hints=[*graph_break_hints.DYNAMO_BUG],
from_exc=exc,
raise_observed_exception(
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@williamwen42, could you take a look at this change? Do you see any issues with replacing the unimplemented(...) call with raising an exception in Dynamo? If the exception isn't caught, it will propagate to CPython.

This change is needed to get some of the CPython set tests to pass.

[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link
Member
@williamwen42 williamwen42 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks generally fine, but slightly worried if there's a case where Dynamo raises an exception but eager code does not (can't think of one off the top of my head).

Do you have sample code that can be added to the unittests that demonstrates this fix?

[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting merge as part of PR stack under #152990

[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting merge as part of PR stack under #152990

1 similar comment
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting merge as part of PR stack under #152990

[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting merge as part of PR stack under #152908

[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting merge as part of PR stack under #152990

pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
pytorchmergebot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants
0