Skip to content
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

Linking registered models in MLflow with the corresponding MLflow run #3020

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 24, 2024

Conversation

aiakide
Copy link
Contributor

@aiakide aiakide commented Sep 17, 2024

Describe changes

To link a registered model in MLflow with the corresponding MLflow run, the parameter mlflow_run_id must be included in the metadata argument of the mlflow_register_model_step.

The MLflow run can be traced back to a ZenML pipeline run. This is not a necessary change. However, it is more convenient to have a reference to the MLflow run for the registered models as well, as this makes it possible to view parameters or metrics, for example.

I have adjusted the mlflow_register_model_step so that the mlflow_run_id is added by default if it is not already present in the metadata.

The following screenshots show the effects in the MLFlow user interface.
Bildschirmfoto 2024-09-17 um 17 19 31
Bildschirmfoto 2024-09-17 um 17 19 55

Pre-requisites

Please ensure you have done the following:

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
  • If my change requires a change to docs, I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • I have based my new branch on develop and the open PR is targeting develop. If your branch wasn't based on develop read Contribution guide on rebasing branch to develop.
  • If my changes require changes to the dashboard, these changes are communicated/requested.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Other (add details above)

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 17, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@@ -146,6 +146,11 @@ def mlflow_register_model_step(
metadata.zenml_pipeline_run_uuid = pipeline_run_uuid
if metadata.zenml_workspace is None:
metadata.zenml_workspace = zenml_workspace
if metadata.model_extra and "mlflow_run_id" in metadata.model_extra:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little confused by this change, can you explain the intended behaviour of this code?

To me it seems like:

  • We first check whether the mlflow_run_id exists in the model_extra dict
  • If it doesn't exist, we do nothing. Why don't we add the key in this case?
  • If it does exist, we have another if condition, but both the if and else branch do exactly the same thing: They overwrite the key with the mlflow run id.

It seems like both the if and else condition do the same thing: Overwrite mlflow_run_id in the model_extra dict, no matter if it's None or not.

And why do we need the actual check ahead if the key even exists and not just always set it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, you are right, there is a mistake. I was probably too focused on getting rid of the mypy warning 😄
Now it should work.
I now use the get method to directly retrieve the value for the key mlflow_run_id and check for None. If mlflow_run_id does not exist, None is returned. If None is returned, the value mlflow_run_id is set.

As long as the value does not already exist in the metadata and != None, the determined run ID is added to the metadata.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep looks good now!

@aiakide aiakide force-pushed the feature/mlflow-register-link-run branch from c9f5588 to c2c54d7 Compare September 18, 2024 11:26
…l_version`

The `mlflow_run_id` is required to assign a registered model to an MLflow run. The MLflow run can be traced back to a ZenML pipeline run.
This is not a necessary change. However, it is more convenient to have a reference to the MLflow run for the registered models as well, as this makes it possible to view parameters or metrics, for example.
@aiakide aiakide force-pushed the feature/mlflow-register-link-run branch from c2c54d7 to 7f5e3fb Compare September 20, 2024 10:16
@schustmi schustmi merged commit 9626c30 into zenml-io:develop Sep 24, 2024
4 checks passed
@aiakide aiakide deleted the feature/mlflow-register-link-run branch October 2, 2024 13:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants