[WIP] Fix BatchNormalization layer export issue in ONNX model - #2988
[WIP] Fix BatchNormalization layer export issue in ONNX model#2988Justin Chu (justinchuby) with Copilot wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
Co-authored-by: justinchuby <11205048+justinchuby@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Copilot name fix pass is still needed. Let me know if onnx-ir needs updating or if there is another way to fix it |
Co-authored-by: justinchuby <11205048+justinchuby@users.noreply.github.com>
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2988 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 72.65% 72.67% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 265 265
Lines 32260 32286 +26
Branches 3050 3056 +6
==========================================
+ Hits 23438 23463 +25
Misses 7786 7786
- Partials 1036 1037 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. |
|
Copilot, adding a call to RemoveUnusedNodesPass (the pass that started this issue to begin with) for the sole purpose of clearing the output names of unused inference BatchNormalization layers, is a heavy handed and lazy way to circumvent the issue. Apologies for speaking out of turn Justin Chu (@justinchuby). I just had to. |
|
Copilot please update as commented |
Co-authored-by: justinchuby <11205048+justinchuby@users.noreply.github.com>
Updated in a7ec3f0. The second |
|
Justin Chu (@justinchuby) , looks like it's time to move this over to onnx-ir. |
|
I think ultimately we need to know how to deal with this op here. ONNX IR is agnostic to the opsets or operators. |
|
while I would normally agree with you, in this case it very much feels like on onnx-ir short coming. Fixing this in onnxscript feels a but too purist in my opinion, as it is clear that onnx-ir's intention is to remove such outputs |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.