Arm backend: Add manifest validation and add Backwards compabillety testing#18813
Open
Sebastian-Larsson wants to merge 4 commits intopytorch:mainfrom
Open
Arm backend: Add manifest validation and add Backwards compabillety testing#18813Sebastian-Larsson wants to merge 4 commits intopytorch:mainfrom
Sebastian-Larsson wants to merge 4 commits intopytorch:mainfrom
Conversation
Sebastian-Larsson
added
partner: arm
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/18813
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ You can merge normally! (10 Unrelated Failures)As of commit 63d76a3 with merge base 1debeb6 ( BROKEN TRUNK - The following jobs failed but were present on the merge base:👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
meta-cla
Bot
added
the
CLA Signed
Collaborator
|
Hi @digantdesai we tried to handle the buck2 files with this, but you might want to take a peek anyway. |
Sebastian-Larsson
force-pushed
the
validate_manifest
branch
from
a38dcd1 to
3c5c6b2
Compare
zingo
changed the title
zingo
changed the title
Sebastian-Larsson
force-pushed
the
validate_manifest
branch
from
3c5c6b2 to
a799b2d
Compare
Collaborator
|
@digantdesai this adds some files and update buck2 stuff so you might want to check this :) |
Member
|
Thanks. Buck CI is running internally now and I'll report back if there's anything issues. |
Contributor
|
@GregoryComer has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this in D101685482. |
digantdesai
reviewed
Apr 20, 2026
| # | ||
| # This file is generated by | ||
| # backends/arm/scripts/generate_public_api_manifest.py | ||
| # backends/arm/scripts/public_api_manifest/generate_public_api_manifest.py |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is not the PR introducing this API checker, but two questions,
(1) why not rely on unit-tests to enforce the actual behavior, beyond API BC
(2) why not use Griffe or something similar to do this for you?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Adding the validation scripts lints the API surface for mismatches, leading to early feedback when something isn't adhering to the API. We can also control deprecation and experimental features easily. Also, with a testing only approach we'll miss when the API is updated and no tests are added for it. That would require a check of its own.
- Adding these scripts was relatively simple and let's us control the entire flow. Griffe may be able to replace parts of this, but not all, meaning we would still need custom code to handle our API.
digantdesai
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2026
Contributor
digantdesai
left a comment
digantdesai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok with this PR, but left a couple of question for the original motivation (sorry I was out for a few months)
Member
|
The internal buck build is complaining about the following: |
Add a validator script that compares one public API manifest against the current backends/arm API using exact symbol, kind, and signature matching. Add regression tests for manifest drift, and run the validator from the Arm pre-push hook on every push. Change-Id: I4765510b8a2f8c5aa09717fc8287d976c770897d Signed-off-by: Sebastian Larsson <sebastian.larsson@arm.com>
Introduce BC tests and add those as well as the validation of the public API manifest to CI in the pull job. Change-Id: I1815223a13109e225f2b9e0f9914b504799db2ae Signed-off-by: Sebastian Larsson <sebastian.larsson@arm.com>
Flatten nested TOML tables when reading Python public API manifest entries so validation also checks nested symbols. Add regression coverage that shows nested entries are parsed and that missing nested symbols are reported by validation. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Larsson <sebastian.larsson@arm.com> Change-Id: Ic04883d07647b3b6f4ed9b86c68d969dcbd90ade
Sebastian-Larsson
force-pushed
the
validate_manifest
branch
from
a799b2d to
2a5222d
Compare
Contributor
|
Rebase please, I think the test file rename should work but I can pull it internal once more before merging to avoid a silly-issue revert. Thanks. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
cc @digantdesai @freddan80 @per @zingo @oscarandersson8218 @mansnils @robell