Skip to content
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

Fix modular edge case + modular sorting order #35562

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

Cyrilvallez
Copy link
Member

@Cyrilvallez Cyrilvallez commented Jan 8, 2025

What does this PR do?

Fix a very niche edge-case discovered in #35147: if the model name appear in a normal word (e.g. sam appears in the word downsample, then it is replaced by the new name). This is of course unwanted, and a simple check for previous char in the regex fixes it.

Also fix the topological_sort function in create_dependency_mapping.py: it is currently fully skipping some files that are silently not converted. I had a hard time finding the exact root, so I mostly rewrote it (I believe it is much simpler now), and it works nicely. I also added a check in modular_model_converter.py to ensure that we never silently skip files.

Finally, I added back the possibility to convert the examples. Note that this does not slow down make fix-copies, which I think was the reason to remove them, as they are not included in check_modular_conversion.py (and it's important that we are able to check on them as well). They will not be converted when doing python utils/modular_model_converter.py --files_to_parse all though, I added the keyword python utils/modular_model_converter.py --files_to_parse examples.

cc @ArthurZucker and @yonigozlan as you touched it recently as well

@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.

@Cyrilvallez Cyrilvallez changed the title Fix modular string replacement edge case Fix modular edge case + modular sorting order Jan 8, 2025
@Cyrilvallez Cyrilvallez marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 16:47
Comment on lines +6 to +28
def topological_sort(dependencies: dict):
# Nodes are the name of the models to convert (we only add those to the graph)
nodes = {node.rsplit("modular_", 1)[1].replace(".py", "") for node in dependencies.keys()}
# This will be a graph from models to convert, to models to convert that should be converted before (as they are a dependency)
graph = {}
name_mapping = {}
for node, deps in dependencies.items():
node_name = node.split("/")[-2]
for dep in deps:
dep_name = dep.split(".")[-2]
if dep_name == node_name:
# Skip self dependencies for topological sort as they create cycles
continue
if "example" not in node and "auto" not in dep and node_name not in graph[dep_name]:
graph[dep_name].append(node_name)
new_dependencies[node_name] = node

# Create a graph and in-degree count for each node
def filter_one_by_one(filtered_list, reverse):
if len(reverse) == 0:
return filtered_list

graph = defaultdict(list)
# Build the graph
for node, deps in reverse.items():
for dep in deps:
graph[dep].append(node)

base_modules = set(reverse.keys()) - set(graph.keys())
if base_modules == reverse.keys():
# we are at the end
return filtered_list + list(graph.keys())
to_add = []
for k in graph.keys():
if len(graph[k]) == 1 and graph[k][0] in base_modules:
if graph[k][0] in reverse:
del reverse[graph[k][0]]
if k not in filtered_list:
to_add += [k]
for k in base_modules:
if k not in filtered_list:
to_add += [k]
filtered_list += list(to_add)
return filter_one_by_one(filtered_list, reverse)

final_order = filter_one_by_one([], graph)

return [new_dependencies.get(k) for k in final_order if k in new_dependencies]
node_name = node.rsplit("modular_", 1)[1].replace(".py", "")
dep_names = {dep.split(".")[-2] for dep in deps}
dependencies = {dep for dep in dep_names if dep in nodes and dep != node_name}
graph[node_name] = dependencies
name_mapping[node_name] = node

sorting_list = []
while len(graph) > 0:
# Find the nodes with 0 out-degree
leaf_nodes = {node for node in graph if len(graph[node]) == 0}
# Add them to the list
sorting_list += list(leaf_nodes)
# Remove the leafs from the graph (and from the deps of other nodes)
graph = {node: deps - leaf_nodes for node, deps in graph.items() if node not in leaf_nodes}

return [name_mapping[x] for x in sorting_list]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Congrats, much easier to read and understand from an (almost) outsider perspective. maybe naive notes/questions:

  • there can't be dependency cycles, right? because they'd break this, the loop would not end
  • I'd be wary of sets since they don't preserve ordering, we might want it later

Copy link
Member Author

@Cyrilvallez Cyrilvallez Jan 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @molbap, thanks for looking into it! You raise some good points, I should have provided a bit more details:

  1. Indeed in our case we can never have cycles as models are added chronologically, ensuring it (if at time 't', i.e. now, we dont' have cycles, we will never have any by adding more models: adding a model is equivalent to adding a new non existing node with 0 in-degree and as much out-degree as modeling imported). For our past model refactors, we might need to be slightly wary of this; it is our responsibility to ensure consistency here and not add cycles. But I'm extremely confident this case will never appear in practice, as we usually rely on the old "copied from" to know from which model we can refactor, which has the same notion of chronology. Worst case scenario, the person refactoring an old model and adding a cycle by mistake will immediately notice that there is a bug, and will be able to switch the "origin model" for the refactor.
    Thus, the topology of our current (and future) graph (directed acyclic graph) ensures that the algorithm will not get stuck 👌🏻

  2. At each step, the order of the nodes with 0 out-degree does not matter, so it is easier to use sets here as they have nice property and we can easily take the difference with the "-" operator!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. well put, thanks! understood, yes I was thinking people might get caught up in an error during development but it will never reach main. Dag rules
  2. if we're sure order is useless then yes, sets are the best choice indeed :)

Copy link
Collaborator

@ArthurZucker ArthurZucker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM nice upgrade haha I remember trying super hard to make it recursive for no reasons.
Before merging, we need a test to make sure we don't break anything. I was too lazy to add it, sorry that it falls on you! 😓 (let's explicitly write the order we expect for given deps by using current state of the repo!)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants