Improve propagation passes docstrings #276
Conversation
| let options = [ | ||
| Option<"keepShardingRules", "keep-sharding-rules", "bool", | ||
| /*default=*/"false", | ||
| "whether to keep existing and created op sharding rules.">, | ||
| Option<"moduleDumpDirectory", "module-dump-directory", "string", | ||
| /*default=*/"", | ||
| "where to dump any rewritten modules for debugging.">, | ||
| Option<"conservativePropagation", "conservative-propagation", "bool", | ||
| /*default=*/"false", | ||
| "whether to disallow split axes and non-divisible sharding axes during " | ||
| "propagation.">, | ||
| Option<"debugShardingOrigins", "debug-sharding-origins", "bool", | ||
| /*default=*/"false", | ||
| "whether to save information about the origin of a sharding on the MLIR " | ||
| "module. These would be the shardings on the function inputs, outputs, " | ||
| "sharding constraints and manual computations before propagation.">, | ||
| Option<"debugEdgeSourceSharding", "debug-edge-source-sharding", "bool", | ||
| /*default=*/"false", | ||
| "whether to save information about the edge source of a sharding on the " | ||
| "MLIR module. These are what operand/result introduced a sharding on " | ||
| "some op result.">, | ||
| Option<"propagationStrategy", "propagation-strategy", "string", | ||
| /*default=*/"", | ||
| "which factor propagation strategy to use.">, | ||
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I'm surprised this works! I remember due to the subclassing we couldn't make these explicit options. Does this compile and all tests pass? I'm guessing it does since the flags are duplicated?
I guess an annoying issue is that we can't create top level constants which save these options in a list, and have to duplicate them. Hmm I'm unsure what is better to do here....I'm leaning to keeping it as is, @tomnatan30 any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm afraid this doesn't work, see failing build.
We can't declare the options at the moment because we define them in the c++ files so they can be inherited.
@melissawm feel free to update the description of the options and change their format so they will look better in the auto generated doc, but we can't switch to declarative options just yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can try to make it look exactly as it does with the declarative options you have now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a pity! Will do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think repeating is fine - in terms of usability, having all options on hand when looking up one of these items is more helpful than having to click through other previously defined items. In addition, the items on the page are now shown in the same order as the source file so we can't rely on what was "previously" defined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I understand the concern. It's up to you really - I'm happy to move that back and refer to the original options instead of repeating. Just let me know and I'll change it 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we would want to try declaring the options like you did before, and this was require some refactoring, so better to keep it simple until we do (not repeating) if that's ok.
btw, when we use the let options, the auto generated doc would have:
Options
-some-option1 : whether to do A
-some-option2 : whether to do B
Should we reuse this format or keep as is? Maybe better to avoid the #### Options, given it looks out of format in the td file. wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I understand the difference - the #### are added automatically when the let options syntax is used, so I'm not sure that could be tweaked. I could use that in the description field but I think it would look out of place, as the markdown section hierarchy represented by the # characters would be lost. I would vote for just using bold face for now (as in **Options**)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was also referring to the code block all options were in when using the let options syntax, but lets keep as is :)
The PR got auto imported with the previous version (with duplication), and this PR was automatically closed. This is fine, we can fix it on out side.
Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops sorry about that! Let me know if there's anything I can do, otherwise thanks for all the feedback!!
melissawm
force-pushed
the
passes-doc
branch
from
a953af0 to
f3e1b7a
Compare
Options<>syntax;