Skip to content

feat: add medium e2e CI job for each PR #551

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat: add medium e2e CI job for each PR #551

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cdoern
Copy link
Contributor

@cdoern cdoern commented May 13, 2025

This CI job runs the "SDK" of training in conjunction with ilab data generate. The goal here is to test convergence on each PR in a timely manner

@instructlab instructlab deleted a comment from mergify bot May 13, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added CI/CD Affects CI/CD configuration ci-failure labels May 13, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added ci-failure and removed ci-failure labels May 15, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added ci-failure and removed ci-failure labels May 15, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added ci-failure and removed ci-failure labels May 16, 2025
@mergify mergify bot removed the ci-failure label May 16, 2025
This CI job runs the "SDK" of training in conjunction with `ilab data generate`. The goal here is to test convergence on each PR in a timely manner

Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <cdoern@redhat.com>
{"Key": "GitHubPR", "Value": "${{ github.event.number }}"}
]

e2e-large-test:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

these are saying large runner, but I think you're starting a medium runner.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

@JamesKunstle JamesKunstle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not against merging this as a useful test because it's much faster than the large e2e that we use in the upstream ilab repo. However, I think it'd be nicer if we called this an integration-e2e rather than an sdk test. We can isolate the SDK testing slightly differently s.t. we're testing against useful upstream data rather than tightly coupling our testing vs. the SDG output.


- name: Update instructlab-training library
run: |
export CUDA_HOME="/usr/local/cuda"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please use ./scripts/install-ilab-with-cuda.sh from ilab repo. It should give you the necessary environment.

. venv/bin/activate
ls scripts
ls ./
./scripts/test-sdk.sh
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Except this line, is there any significant difference between the current e2e job and this sdk one? We may want to consolidate it under reusable action, see #563 (I don't insist you adopt it since it's not merged yet, but please put a comment so that we revisit.)

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
chat:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we trim this file to what was actually modified from the defaults / needed for sdk tests?

pull_request_target:
branches:
- "main"
schedule:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do we need the schedule? (it was not mentioned in the PR description)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI/CD Affects CI/CD configuration
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants