Skip to content

Conversation

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Member

An earlier PR (lost the link, sorry) changed how persist works in our tests with async clients. Instead of calling collection.persist() you instead use client.persist. Applying that change to some of the GPU-marked tests.

An earlier PR (lost the link, sorry) changed how `persist` works in
our tests with async clients. Instead of calling `collection.persist()`
you instead use `client.persist`. Applying that change to some
of the GPU-marked tests.
@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger requested a review from fjetter as a code owner June 9, 2025 18:57
TomAugspurger added a commit to TomAugspurger/dask-upstream-testing that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2025
We added these skips when I wasn't sure why these tests were failing. The
presence of these skips caused CI failures in the upstream repos when
we bumped things:

- rapidsai/dask-cuda#1487
- rapidsai/ucxx#418

Lesson: skips are OK, though still not desired, for tests in dask / distributed.
Skips for downstream rapids failures are not OK.

Merge once dask/distributed#9089 is in distributed.

Closes rapidsai#53
Copy link
Member

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @TomAugspurger. LGTM overall -- one (non-blocking) comment

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 9, 2025

Unit Test Results

See test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests.

    27 files  ±0      27 suites  ±0   11h 18m 53s ⏱️ + 9m 12s
 4 115 tests ±0   3 995 ✅  - 7    111 💤 ±0  9 ❌ +7 
51 595 runs  ±0  49 301 ✅  - 7  2 285 💤 ±0  9 ❌ +7 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 5e79fb1. ± Comparison against base commit ca6efac.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau merged commit fe98f49 into dask:main Jun 9, 2025
51 of 59 checks passed
@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger deleted the tom/gpu-sync-async branch June 10, 2025 11:44
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.

2 participants