Improve truss examples CI script #373
Conversation
squidarth
changed the title
| model_deployment = truss.push( | ||
| target_directory, remote=REMOTE_NAME, trusted=True, publish=True | ||
| ) | ||
| model_deployment.wait_for_active() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, so this will block until the model comes up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, and fail fast as soon as there's a failure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you import this from it's defining module instead? I.e. from truss.api...? Forward-compatible with the separation of concerns in the truss package.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait -- I thought from your PR we were leaving truss.push in the top-level? https://github.com/basetenlabs/truss/pull/1206/files#diff-92d69f0f5363f1d4e214eaf4a10c951888cf1a388ee43f4ed7cd57e720e837e1
There are several users using truss.push in their CI jobs now, so removing this would be a pretty serious breaking change (we've documented this API) https://docs.baseten.co/truss-reference/python-sdk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to merge this for now since something seems quite broken with the current script (which calls the legacy predict endpoints), but let's discuss this further, want to make sure we're aligned (and can change if we have to)
|
Great quality of life improvement, thanks! |
| model_deployment = truss.push( | ||
| target_directory, remote=REMOTE_NAME, trusted=True, publish=True | ||
| ) | ||
| model_deployment.wait_for_active() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you import this from it's defining module instead? I.e. from truss.api...? Forward-compatible with the separation of concerns in the truss package.
Improves the truss examples to do the following:
Testing
Ran https://github.com/basetenlabs/truss-examples/actions/runs/11633933987/job/32400112601