Skip to content

[None][fix] Fix AutoDeploy shim test expecting soft fallback for speculative+flashinfer - #15280

Closed
achartier wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA:mainfrom
achartier:fix-ad-speculative-flashinfer-test
Closed

[None][fix] Fix AutoDeploy shim test expecting soft fallback for speculative+flashinfer#15280
achartier wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA:mainfrom
achartier:fix-ad-speculative-flashinfer-test

Conversation

@achartier

@achartier achartier commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@coderabbitai summary

Description

test_speculative_flashinfer_fallback_disables_piecewise was failing with a hard pydantic.ValidationError because it was written against the old auto-correction behavior (silent fallback to torch-simple), but the reject_cudagraph_for_speculative_flashinfer validator now explicitly rejects the speculative + FlashInfer + CUDA-graph-backend combination and requires the user to set compile_backend='torch-simple' explicitly.

Fix: pass compile_backend="torch-simple" in the test and rename it to test_speculative_flashinfer_torch_simple_disables_piecewise to accurately describe what it tests. The test still covers a distinct scenario (speculative + flashinfer + torch-simple → piecewise_enabled is False) not exercised by the existing test_accepts_flashinfer_torch_simple or test_non_piecewise_compile_backend_disables_default_piecewise.

Test Coverage

  • tests/unittest/auto_deploy/singlegpu/shim/test_llm_config.py::test_speculative_flashinfer_torch_simple_disables_piecewise — the renamed/fixed test itself

PR Checklist

Please review the following before submitting your PR:

  • PR description clearly explains what and why. If using CodeRabbit's summary, please make sure it makes sense.

  • PR Follows TRT-LLM CODING GUIDELINES to the best of your knowledge.

  • Test cases are provided for new code paths (see test instructions)

  • If PR introduces API changes, an appropriate PR label is added - either api-compatible or api-breaking. For api-breaking, include BREAKING in the PR title.

  • Any new dependencies have been scanned for license and vulnerabilities

  • CODEOWNERS updated if ownership changes

  • Documentation updated as needed

  • Update tava architecture diagram if there is a significant design change in PR.

  • The reviewers assigned automatically/manually are appropriate for the PR.

  • Please check this after reviewing the above items as appropriate for this PR.

GitHub Bot Help

To see a list of available CI bot commands, please comment /bot help.

…r in AutoDeploy

test_speculative_flashinfer_fallback_disables_piecewise was written expecting
the old auto-correction behavior (silent fallback to torch-simple), but
reject_cudagraph_for_speculative_flashinfer now hard-rejects the combination
unless compile_backend is set explicitly. Pass compile_backend='torch-simple'
and rename the test to match what it actually tests.

Signed-off-by: Aurelien Chartier <2567591+achartier@users.noreply.github.com>
@achartier
achartier requested a review from a team as a code owner June 11, 2026 23:32
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A single test function in the LLM config test suite is renamed and updated to explicitly target the torch-simple compile backend. The test name and backend parameter are synchronized to clarify that piecewise disabling assertions apply to the torch-simple backend scenario in speculative FlashInfer configurations.

Changes

Speculative FlashInfer torch-simple piecewise-disable test update

Layer / File(s) Summary
Speculative FlashInfer torch-simple piecewise-disable test update
tests/unittest/auto_deploy/singlegpu/shim/test_llm_config.py
Test function renamed to test_speculative_flashinfer_torch_simple_disables_piecewise and compile_backend="torch-simple" parameter added to LlmArgs construction, aligning the test name and configuration to explicitly target the torch-simple backend.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested reviewers

  • greg-kwasniewski1
  • bmarimuthu-nv
  • tcherckez-nvidia
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly identifies the fix as addressing a test that had incorrect expectations regarding auto-correction behavior for speculative+flashinfer combinations.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description check ✅ Passed The PR description is comprehensive and clearly explains the issue, solution, and test coverage with proper checklist completion.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@achartier

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

/bot run

@tensorrt-cicd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

PR_Github #53727 [ run ] triggered by Bot. Commit: 0a285ff Link to invocation

@tensorrt-cicd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

PR_Github #53727 [ run ] completed with state SUCCESS. Commit: 0a285ff
/LLM/main/L0_MergeRequest_PR pipeline #42855 completed with status: 'SUCCESS'

CI Report

Link to invocation

@achartier

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Addressed by #15293

@achartier achartier closed this Jun 12, 2026
@achartier
achartier deleted the fix-ad-speculative-flashinfer-test branch June 15, 2026 15:58
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