-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.7k
[Fix] The zip function in Python 3.9 does not have the strict argument #19549
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.
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project. 💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels. Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging. To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add 🚀 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello @princepride, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses a compatibility issue with Python 3.9 by conditionally applying the strict=True
argument to the zip
function call. This allows the vLLM worker components to function correctly in environments running Python versions older than 3.10, specifically targeting the reported issue in Python 3.9.
Highlights
- Python Version Compatibility: Added conditional logic to handle the
strict
argument of thezip
function, which was introduced in Python 3.10. This ensures compatibility with Python 3.9 environments. - Code Location: The fix is applied in the
_update_states
method within both the GPU and TPU model runner files.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configureGemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request correctly addresses the TypeError
encountered with zip(..., strict=True)
on Python 3.9 by introducing a version check for sys.version_info >= (3, 10)
. For older Python versions, zip
is now called without the strict
argument.
A key consideration is that the strict=True
parameter in zip
(for Python 3.10+) ensures that an error is raised if the zipped iterables have different lengths. By falling back to a non-strict zip
for older versions, this explicit check is lost, and zip
will silently truncate to the length of the shorter iterable. My main feedback is to suggest adding a manual length check in the else
blocks for both modified files to maintain the original strict behavior and prevent potential silent errors if the iterable lengths are not guaranteed to be identical.
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for fixing!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @princepride and sorry for introducing this incompatibility.
IMO though it would be better to just remove the strict=True
for now. It's just a conservative check and not worth this amount of extra code/complexity.
@DarkLight1337 What do you think of this suggestion? By the way, the unit test failed, it seems that it is not a problem with my code |
Yeah I'm fine with removing |
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
Signed-off-by: 汪志鹏 <[email protected]>
Warning You have reached your daily quota limit. Please wait up to 24 hours and I will start processing your requests again! |
Purpose
Fix #19432
Test Plan
Run the command:
Test Result
Check the python version and start the server:
Execution result: