Tests: follow #14473's Unsloth wording in the sandbox, xformers and autoopt parity checks by danielhanchen · Pull Request #14522 · unslothai/unsloth · GitHub
Skip to content

Tests: follow #14473's Unsloth wording in the sandbox, xformers and autoopt parity checks - #14522

Merged
danielhanchen merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/tests-after-14473-rename
Oct 21, 2026
Merged

danielhanchen merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/tests-after-14473-rename

Conversation

@danielhanchen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Problem

#14473 renamed user-facing "Studio" to "Unsloth" in the backend messages, but three tests still expect the old wording. They fail on main and on open PRs (for example #14494 and #14488):

Test Expects Product now says
test_sandbox_linux.py::test_an_interpreter_symlinked_out_of_the_workdir_fails_the_call Python that runs Studio Python that runs Unsloth (sandbox_linux.py)
test_diffusion_attention.py::test_a_hidden_xformers_is_not_reinstalled_in_the_same_process restart Studio restart Unsloth (diffusion_attention.py)
test_diffusion_autoopt_parity.py (two tests) the Studio fast step that replays decode steps from tensors, 16 times in fixtures/diffusion_autoopt_parity.json the Unsloth fast step ... (diffusion_capture_safe.py)

The rename was intended, so the tests are what is out of date.

Fix

Test only. Both assertions and the 16 recorded reasons in the parity fixture now use "Unsloth". Those 16 strings were the only "Studio" in the fixture. Nothing else in it changes.

Verification

  • test_sandbox_linux.py and test_diffusion_attention.py: both target tests fail on main and pass with this change.
    • The one remaining local failure, test_active_attention_backend_reads_tuple_return, is an ImportError from this host's huggingface_hub and fails the same way on main.
  • test_diffusion_autoopt_parity.py (CPU torch 2.10, diffusers 0.41.0.dev0):
    • with main's fixture: 2 failed, 1 passed;
    • with this change: 3 passed.

@danielhanchen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 21, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-21T14:25:30.417216Z a01ef15 Manual request
🔒 Security Review ⚠️ Failed 2026-10-21T14:00:24.135669Z
We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex security review to try again.
a01ef15 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The account paying for this security review has reached its Codex usage limits. The payer can check the Codex usage dashboard. For personal accounts, using credits requires enabling “Use credits for security reviews” in Code review settings. If you do not manage the paying account, contact this repository's admins.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”.

Unknown error
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@danielhanchen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@danielhanchen
danielhanchen merged commit db0753a into main Oct 21, 2026
17 of 40 checks passed
@danielhanchen
danielhanchen deleted the fix/tests-after-14473-rename branch October 21, 2026 14:31
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.

1 participant