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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[ Wait for #2771 ][unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/28 13:48 #2772

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2024
Merged

[ Wait for #2771 ][unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/28 13:48 #2772

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

DonghakPark
Copy link
Member

@DonghakPark DonghakPark commented Oct 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Fix nntrainer IniTest cases on basic valid senarios

  • fix old parm to valid momentum = 0.99
  • uncommnet tcs

Fix below TEST_P

  • nntrainerInitTest - init
  • nntrainerInitTest - initTwice

Self evaluation:

  1. Build test: [X]Passed [ ]Failed [ ]Skipped
  2. Run test: [X]Passed [ ]Failed [ ]Skipped

@taos-ci
Copy link
Collaborator

taos-ci commented Oct 24, 2024

📝 TAOS-CI Version: 1.5.20200925. Thank you for submitting PR #2772. Please a submit 1commit/1PR (one commit per one PR) policy to get comments quickly from reviewers. Your PR must pass all verificiation processes of cibot before starting a review process from reviewers. If you are new member to join this project, please read manuals in documentation folder and wiki page. In order to monitor a progress status of your PR in more detail, visit http://ci.nnstreamer.ai/.

taos-ci
taos-ci approved these changes Oct 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@taos-ci taos-ci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DonghakPark, 💯 All CI checkers are successfully verified. Thanks.

@jijoongmoon jijoongmoon changed the title [unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest [unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/24 19:24 Oct 24, 2024
@DonghakPark DonghakPark force-pushed the recover_TC branch 2 times, most recently from 2497dde to a6272be Compare October 24, 2024 10:28
@DonghakPark DonghakPark changed the title [unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/24 19:24 [ Wait for #2771 ][unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/24 19:24 Oct 24, 2024
@DonghakPark DonghakPark force-pushed the recover_TC branch 2 times, most recently from d905458 to 791a6eb Compare October 24, 2024 11:00
taos-ci
taos-ci approved these changes Oct 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@taos-ci taos-ci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DonghakPark, 💯 All CI checkers are successfully verified. Thanks.

taos-ci
taos-ci approved these changes Oct 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@taos-ci taos-ci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DonghakPark, 💯 All CI checkers are successfully verified. Thanks.

skykongkong8
skykongkong8 reviewed Oct 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/unittest/unittest_nntrainer_modelfile.cpp
Comment on lines +353 to +354
mkIniTc("basic3_p", {nw_base + "loss=cross", adam, input + "-Activation", out+"input_layers=inputlayer"}, SUCCESS),
mkIniTc("basic4_p", {nw_base + "loss=cross", adam, input, out+"input_layers=inputlayer"}, SUCCESS),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pure question :
Why should we remove -Activation from here to pass?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the current nntrainer, when using cross loss, either a sigmoid or softmax activation must be used.
Therefore, if you delete the activation in out, it will not work properly.

It's probably different from the previous implementation, so I modified it for pass.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got it, thanks for your explanation!

djeong20
djeong20 approved these changes Oct 28, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@djeong20 djeong20 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@DonghakPark DonghakPark changed the title [ Wait for #2771 ][unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/24 19:24 [ Wait for #2771 ][unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest @open sesame 10/28 13:48 Oct 28, 2024
taos-ci
taos-ci approved these changes Oct 28, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@taos-ci taos-ci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DonghakPark, 💯 All CI checkers are successfully verified. Thanks.

@DonghakPark
[unittest/modelfile] Fix nntrainerIniTest
6c44587 
Fix nntrainer IniTest cases on basic valid senarios
- fix old parm to valid
- uncommnet tcs

**Self evaluation:**
1. Build test:	 [X]Passed [ ]Failed [ ]Skipped
2. Run test:	 [X]Passed [ ]Failed [ ]Skipped

Signed-off-by: Donghak PARK <[email protected]>
taos-ci
taos-ci approved these changes Oct 29, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@taos-ci taos-ci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DonghakPark, 💯 All CI checkers are successfully verified. Thanks.

@jijoongmoon jijoongmoon merged commit 521ab0b into nnstreamer:main Oct 29, 2024
37 checks passed
@DonghakPark DonghakPark deleted the recover_TC branch October 30, 2024 04:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@skykongkong8 skykongkong8 skykongkong8 approved these changes

@djeong20 djeong20 djeong20 approved these changes

@taos-ci taos-ci taos-ci approved these changes

@myungjoo myungjoo Awaiting requested review from myungjoo myungjoo is a code owner

@jijoongmoon jijoongmoon Awaiting requested review from jijoongmoon jijoongmoon is a code owner

@again4you again4you Awaiting requested review from again4you again4you is a code owner

@jaeyun-jung jaeyun-jung Awaiting requested review from jaeyun-jung jaeyun-jung is a code owner

@leemgs leemgs Awaiting requested review from leemgs leemgs is a code owner

@wooksong wooksong Awaiting requested review from wooksong wooksong is a code owner

@helloahn helloahn Awaiting requested review from helloahn

@kparichay kparichay Awaiting requested review from kparichay

@gichan-jang gichan-jang Awaiting requested review from gichan-jang gichan-jang is a code owner

@anyj0527 anyj0527 Awaiting requested review from anyj0527 anyj0527 is a code owner

@zhoonit zhoonit Awaiting requested review from zhoonit

@lhs8928 lhs8928 Awaiting requested review from lhs8928 lhs8928 is a code owner

@songgot songgot Awaiting requested review from songgot songgot is a code owner

@jihochu jihochu Awaiting requested review from jihochu jihochu is a code owner

@SeoHyungjun SeoHyungjun Awaiting requested review from SeoHyungjun SeoHyungjun is a code owner

@baek2sm baek2sm Awaiting requested review from baek2sm baek2sm is a code owner

@EunjuYang EunjuYang Awaiting requested review from EunjuYang EunjuYang is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
rebase required UnitTest
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@DonghakPark @taos-ci @djeong20 @skykongkong8 @jijoongmoon