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

Make Python Client robust to existing IPython installations #1186

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 19, 2019

Conversation

JohnPaton
Copy link
Contributor

@JohnPaton JohnPaton commented Apr 18, 2019

In the current implementation of Client._is_ipython, the only check performed is a simple attempted import of the IPython package. However, this will fail in the case that the user (or container) has IPython installed, but the command is being executed from the normal Python interpreter.

This PR adds an extra call to IPython.get_ipython, which returns an instance of the running IPython kernel if any, and otherwise None. By raising an ImportError if get_ipython returns None, the existing logic kicks in and Client._is_ipython will return False as expected, whether IPython happens to be installed or not.


This change is Reviewable

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @JohnPaton. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @JohnPaton. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@animeshsingh animeshsingh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

sdk/python/kfp/_client.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-Authored-By: JohnPaton <john@johnpaton.net>
@Ark-kun
Copy link
Contributor

Ark-kun commented Apr 18, 2019

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: animeshsingh, Ark-kun

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: animeshsingh, Ark-kun

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 0b40672 into kubeflow:master Apr 19, 2019
magdalenakuhn17 pushed a commit to magdalenakuhn17/pipelines that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2023
…low#1186)

* Feature: model archive and config generator for torchserve

* Fix: Update readme docs for model-archiver
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants