feat(sdk): Support setting cpu/memory requests. #9121
Conversation
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
chensun
force-pushed
the
resource-requests
branch
from
0eadd76 to
95529f8
Compare
|
/assign @connor-mccarthy |
|
|
||
| if self.container_spec is None: | ||
| raise ValueError( | ||
| 'There is no container specified in implementation') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense to convert this to a more user-facing message indicating that cpu can only be set on single-step components, not pipelines used as a component?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, maybe it makes sense to move this shared check into the validate method (or a separate validation method) for DRY code? Not sure what's best, but want to mention it.
chensun
force-pushed
the
resource-requests
branch
from
c6cb0af to
6c4cdc3
Compare
| @@ -246,6 +246,13 @@ def set_caching_options(self, enable_caching: bool) -> 'PipelineTask': | |||
| self._task_spec.enable_caching = enable_caching | |||
| return self | |||
|
|
|||
| def _ensure_container_spec_exists(self) -> None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Micro improvement suggestion: Could also use a method_name: str param to which you pass self.set_memory_limit.__name__ from within .set_memory_limit()(or whatever the method is) to include the method name in the error message.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't really reference self.func from within the same func. Opted to use inspect to achieve the same goal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SG. inspect works!
Here's what I had in mind. Curious, where did things break down?
class Cls:
def method(self):
self.printer(self.method.__name__)
def printer(self, name):
print(name)
Cls().method()
>>> 'method'There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, that works, I thought I tried the same and got the error but maybe I missed something else.
Anyway, I think I'll keep the inspect approach in favor of there's less effort for the caller to pass in values.
|
@chensun: The following test failed, say
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
kubeflow-pipelines-sdk-execution-tests failure is known issue unrelated to the change, and it's expected to be resolved by next backend release. Merge as-is. |
* Support setting cpu/memory requests. * address review comments * address review comments
Description of your changes:
Checklist: