vllm - 💡(How to fix) Fix [RFC]: Automatic test target determination for CI [1 comments, 1 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
vllm-project/vllm#39884Fetched 2026-04-17 08:24:00
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
1
Timeline
11
Reactions
1
Author
Participants
Assignees
Timeline (top)
subscribed ×5mentioned ×3assigned ×1commented ×1
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Motivation.

Our current conditional testing strategy in CI, which relies on source_file_dependencies being manually updated, gets old and inaccurate very quickly. We need to start finding an approach to automatically determine which test to run based on code diff that can adjust and scale with changes, at the same time reduce CI cost by not launching more tests unnecessarily.

Proposed Change.

I propose that we start with a simple LLM-based approach: an agent instructions markdown file that is integrated with CI pipeline generator

If this approach doesn't work, we can explore more advanced technique: static analysis on dependency graph, train ML model, code coverage report mapping of tests and source files, etc...)

Feedback Period.

No response

CC List.

@dougbtv @avinashsingh77 @AndreasKaratzas

Any Other Things.

No response

Before submitting a new issue...

  • Make sure you already searched for relevant issues, and asked the chatbot living at the bottom right corner of the documentation page, which can answer lots of frequently asked questions.

extent analysis

TL;DR

Implement an automated test selection approach based on code diff to optimize CI pipeline efficiency.

Guidance

  • Explore the proposed LLM-based approach using an agent instructions markdown file integrated with the CI pipeline generator to determine the feasibility of this method.
  • Investigate alternative techniques such as static analysis on dependency graphs, training ML models, or code coverage report mapping to find the most suitable solution.
  • Evaluate the trade-offs between complexity, accuracy, and scalability for each approach to ensure the chosen solution aligns with project requirements.
  • Consider the potential impact on CI costs and test coverage when selecting an approach.

Example

No specific code example can be provided without further technical details, but a high-level example of how the LLM-based approach could work might involve:

# Agent Instructions
## Test Selection
- Run tests for modified source files
- Include dependent tests based on code diff analysis

Notes

The proposed solution relies on the effectiveness of the LLM-based approach or alternative techniques, which may require experimentation and evaluation to determine the best fit.

Recommendation

Apply a workaround by implementing the proposed LLM-based approach as a proof-of-concept to assess its viability and potential for reducing CI costs.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING