Skip to content

Conversation

mgoin
Copy link
Member

@mgoin mgoin commented Apr 30, 2025

The CI for V1 Test is broken (https://buildkite.com/vllm/ci/builds/19044/steps?jid=01968804-ba26-4ab6-8efd-afd36c5ed73a#01968804-ba26-4ab6-8efd-afd36c5ed73a/209-2172) due to a forgotten EngineCoreRequest construction without required arg 'cache_salt'. Introduced by #17045

Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
Copy link

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project.

💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels.

Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run fastcheck CI which starts running only a small and essential subset of CI tests to quickly catch errors. You can run other CI tests on top of those by going to your fastcheck build on Buildkite UI (linked in the PR checks section) and unblock them. If you do not have permission to unblock, ping simon-mo or khluu to add you in our Buildkite org.

Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging.

To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add ready label to the PR or enable auto-merge.

🚀

@mergify mergify bot added the v1 label Apr 30, 2025
@mgoin
Copy link
Member Author

mgoin commented Apr 30, 2025

@dr75 I'm curious if there is a reason for making cache_salt required rather than defaulting it to None?

@ywang96 ywang96 added the ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed label Apr 30, 2025
@ywang96 ywang96 enabled auto-merge (squash) April 30, 2025 22:01
.
Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
@vllm-bot vllm-bot merged commit aa4502e into vllm-project:main May 1, 2025
23 of 25 checks passed
@dr75
Copy link
Contributor

dr75 commented May 1, 2025

@dr75 I'm curious if there is a reason for making cache_salt required rather than defaulting it to None?

As it is security relevant I wanted to avoid an insecure default, reducing the potential for a bug that causes a vulnerability.

@dr75
Copy link
Contributor

dr75 commented May 1, 2025

What should I have done differently to avoid the broken test? Or was that a merge issue as I was actually looking for places where it is needed.

radeksm pushed a commit to radeksm/vllm that referenced this pull request May 2, 2025
RichardoMrMu pushed a commit to RichardoMrMu/vllm that referenced this pull request May 12, 2025
…m-project#17500)

Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mu Huai <tianbowen.tbw@antgroup.com>
zzzyq pushed a commit to zzzyq/vllm that referenced this pull request May 24, 2025
…m-project#17500)

Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuqi Zhang <yuqizhang@google.com>
minpeter pushed a commit to minpeter/vllm that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2025
…m-project#17500)

Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: minpeter <kali2005611@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed v1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants