mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Markham, Aaron" <>
Subject QA & build process for tutorials
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:03:04 GMT
Hi everyone,
Do you have any opinion on the structure of the builds for tutorials & notebooks? I’ve
found close to 200 scripts and notebooks that need attention.

The current state of notebooks is…

md --> html + ipynb

The Straight Dope:
ipynb --> html

Many of the notebooks are broken*, and testing doesn’t seem to happen as part of the build.
However, we can implement notebook testing as part of the build<>
or even as a regular nightly process.

*Broken: urllib bug (Python 3), six module needs upgrading (Python 2), AttributeError: 'NoneType'
object has no attribute 'readlines', and so on…


  *   Python 2 || Python 3 support. Just 3 or both?
  *   Default context: testing the nbconvert tool to check for errors reveals that we should
have ctx.cpu() as our default context, so that testing can be automated on non-GPU machines,
docker/CI setups, etc.
  *   Review of ipynb’s on github is a PITA.
  *   Source of truth: md or ipynb?
  *   Inclusion: how to make it easy and clear how to contribute and edit tutorials?
  *   Scripts/readmes: can we index these and have them on the html version of the site by
translating the to index.html during the build (this already sort of happens and
is probably just a configuration step needed).


  *   Nightly build: look for the latest md or ipynb file and translate it, so a newer md
makes an ipynb, or a newer ipynb makes an md.
  *   QA: if the latest ipynb fails testing, roll back, create a ticket (or whatever notification
makes sense).
  *   Conformity: have mxnet and TSD use a similar process.
  *   Documentation of scripts: each folder should have a readme, if not, it’s flagged (this
should help clean up the issues with undocumented scripts)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message