Repository navigation
[History Server] Bump Ray to 2.58.0 in examples and e2e test data - #5363
wuallen57730 wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Signed-off-by: wuallen57730 <yuwu11926@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: wuallen57730 <yuwu11926@gmail.com>
win5923
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When fixing, found that the time.sleep(2) in test/testdata/rayjob.yaml is a workaround for ray#65288, so it should no longer be needed. Do you want me to remove it in this PR or in a follow-up?
Have you verified that taskLogInfo in the TASK_LIFECYCLE_EVENT is working as expected?
Yes. I checked it two ways, with the
Outputs:
e2e on Ray 2.56: e2e on Ray 2.58: So I think the |
Signed-off-by: wuallen57730 <yuwu11926@gmail.com>
|
kuberay/historyserver/test/e2e/historyserver_test.go Lines 1947 to 1948 in 9dc5527 nit: also update this to something like "completed my_task should expose a complete stdout byte range"? |
| @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ Install Ray locally. Make sure to use at least Ray `v2.55`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Install Ray locally. Make sure to use at least Ray `v2.58`. |
Also update this?
Signed-off-by: wuallen57730 <yuwu11926@gmail.com>
Why are these changes needed?
Task logs don't show up on the task detail page with Ray 2.56, and Ray 2.58 fixes it (ray-project/ray#65288).
This PR bumps the Ray version in the History Server example YAMLs, e2e test data, and DEVELOPMENT.md from 2.56.0 to 2.58.0.
It also adds the
serveLlmSglangdashboard UID to the expected Grafana health response in the e2e test, since Ray 2.58 returns it.Related issue number
Part of #5356
Checks
Manual test instructions
Ran the History Server e2e tests for
/api/v0/tasks(live and dead clusters, including the task log check) and Grafana health on kind with Ray 2.58.0, and they passed.MinIO was swapped to
cgr.dev/chainguard/minio:latest-devlocally because of #5339.Question
When fixing, found that the
time.sleep(2)intest/testdata/rayjob.yamlis a workaround for ray#65288, so it should no longer be needed. Do you want me to remove it in this PR or in a follow-up?