-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 180
Remove tracing blame when encountering runtime errors #1655
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Kyle Sayers <kylesayrs@gmail.com>
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to llm-compressor. Please add the ready label when the PR is ready for review. Note: This is required to complete the testing suite, please only add the label once the PR is code complete and local testing has been performed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello @kylesayrs, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request aims to enhance the debugging experience by updating an error message to be more accurate. It removes an outdated assumption that runtime errors are primarily due to tracing issues, reflecting recent improvements in the autowrapper logic. This ensures that developers are not misled by error messages and can more quickly identify the true root cause of issues.
Highlights
- Error Message Refinement: Modified the
RuntimeError
message insrc/llmcompressor/pipelines/sequential/helpers.py
to remove the specific blame on tracing for runtime exceptions. This change reflects that the new autowrapper logic has made tracing issues much less likely to be the cause of such errors, leading to more accurate and helpful diagnostics.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request removes a potentially misleading part of a runtime error message to improve the debugging experience. The change is straightforward and beneficial. I've added one suggestion to further clean up the error message formatting by removing a now-redundant newline character.
raise RuntimeError( | ||
"Raised an exception during execution of the following code:\n" | ||
f"```\n{add_line_numbers(self._code.src)}\n```\n" | ||
"This is likely due to a violation of shape assumptions made when " | ||
"tracing" | ||
) from exception |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The f-string on line 76 has a trailing newline (\n
) which is now redundant after removing the subsequent text. Removing it will make the error message cleaner.
raise RuntimeError( | |
"Raised an exception during execution of the following code:\n" | |
f"```\n{add_line_numbers(self._code.src)}\n```\n" | |
"This is likely due to a violation of shape assumptions made when " | |
"tracing" | |
) from exception | |
raise RuntimeError( | |
"Raised an exception during execution of the following code:\n" | |
f"```\n{add_line_numbers(self._code.src)}\n```" | |
) from exception |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like a valid suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good call, i have seen this pop up unrelated to tracing
raise RuntimeError( | ||
"Raised an exception during execution of the following code:\n" | ||
f"```\n{add_line_numbers(self._code.src)}\n```\n" | ||
"This is likely due to a violation of shape assumptions made when " | ||
"tracing" | ||
) from exception |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like a valid suggestion
Purpose