Skipping test_save_load_low_cpu_mem_usage() for all failing models

[hackyon]

What does this PR do?

Skips all failing unit tests for test_save_load_low_cpu_mem_usage(). This should be temporary for some of them until the correct tie_weights() have been added to the models.

I created this temporary PR just in case it takes longer to make progress with #29024, and we don't want to block other PRs while we wait for feedback.

Before submitting

• This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
• Did you read the contributor guideline,
  Pull Request section?
• Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the forum? Please add a link
  to it if that's the case.
• Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
  documentation guidelines, and
  here are tips on formatting docstrings.
• Did you write any new necessary tests?

Who can review?

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.

@amyeroberts

[hackyon]

Hello @amyeroberts,

I came up this PR to simply ignores all the failing tests for test_save_load_low_cpu_mem_usage(). This change should be safe as it only touches tests.

This should help unblock any PRs from being merged, while we work on getting tie_weights() into some of these models with #29024.

I leave it up to you to decide this is worth merging.

Thanks! 🙏

[amyeroberts]

@hackyon Awseome work. Thanks for proactively adding this!

cc @ydshieh for reference

[HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev]

The docs for this PR live here. All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update.

[amyeroberts]

@hackyon Thanks for opening this and all of your work on adding this feature to our models!

We're going to revert #28948 and then add it back after the next release, which should happen tomorrow.

Unfortunately, our test suite doesn't seem to be correctly picking up all of the necessary tests. I know you've run a check against all models but we want to be confident that everything is in a good and stable state before the release.

We can then combine the work in #29024 with all models having similar changes which address the current review comments.

[hackyon]

Sounds good, thanks for taking care of this.

Once this rollback goes in, I can come up with a single PR that covers everything all in one.