-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
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
[Post release v0.5.0] Remove block from rayStartParams for python client and KubeRay operator tests #1050
[Post release v0.5.0] Remove block from rayStartParams for python client and KubeRay operator tests #1050
Conversation
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.
Add an unit test for --block
option:
- case 1:
rayStartParams
contains--block
- case 2:
rayStartParams
does not contain--block
.
cc @jasoonn would you mind reviewing this PR? Thanks! |
LGTM. Thanks for the contribution! |
group_name="small-group", | ||
ray_image="rayproject/ray:2.3.0", | ||
ray_command=["/bin/bash", "-lc"], | ||
init_image="busybox:1.28", |
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.
Why do we need this?
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.
Thank you for highlighting this! Since init_image is now essentially unused in the Python client, I have also removed this argument for the Python client accordingly.
6aa2018
to
92450cb
Compare
Signed-off-by: Yicheng-Lu-llll <luyc58576@gmail.com>
92450cb
to
dbfd86c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Yicheng-Lu-llll <luyc58576@gmail.com>
@@ -121,17 +120,14 @@ def build_worker( | |||
group_name: str, | |||
ray_image: str = "rayproject/ray:2.4.0", | |||
ray_command: Any = ["/bin/bash", "-lc"], | |||
init_image: str = "busybox:1.28", |
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.
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.
Yes. It gives users the ability to customize their workers' configuration.
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 build_worker() passes init_image as a parameter to call populate_worker_group() to generate worker group configuration. However, populate_worker_group() does not actually use that parameter. Hence, it makes sense to me to remove init_image here.
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.
If build_worker
is a user-facing function, this change seems to break the backward compatibility. Is it OK?
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.
It's not okay. I forgot to take backward compatibility into consideration.
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.
It breaks the backward compatibility but disruption is expected to be minimal.
init_image
has a default value and in most cases, there is no strong need to modify it considering its meaning. Also for this reason, init_image
does not appear in any Python client examples.
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.
Let's keep init_image unchanged on this PR and make a separate PR to discuss this issue.
Signed-off-by: Yicheng-Lu-llll <luyc58576@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yicheng-Lu-llll <luyc58576@gmail.com>
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.
LGTM. @jasoonn we decide to keep init_image
in the Python client module the same. Would you mind opening a PR to discuss whether we can break the backward compatibility? Thanks!
This PR has already been merged (ba814ef), but I am not sure why this PR has not been closed. Close this PR manually. |
…ent and KubeRay operator tests (ray-project#1050) Remove block from rayStartParams for python client and KubeRay operator tests
…ent and KubeRay operator tests (ray-project#1050) Remove block from rayStartParams for python client and KubeRay operator tests
Why are these changes needed?
From v0.5.0, we inject --block in the rayStartParams automatically in #932. We remove block from YAML files after release v0.5.0 to follow the compatibility philosophy (#940) of KubeRay.
This PR:
Related issue number
Closes #971
#940
Checks
I have run all tests and sample files for python client.
I have run KubeRay operator tests: