analysis: keep annotated reports aligned with authoring syntax
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 118
- Forks
- 14
- Avg merge
- 10h 53m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 31
Description
Problem
The annotated output emitted by tilefoundry analyze --operands is not source-aligned with the authoring model. It prints lowered/expanded IR forms for operations that the tutorial author wrote in DSL syntax, so a reader cannot reliably map the report back to the model.
Reproduction
In the tutorial source, Stage4_WeightPrepared contains:
wq_local = tf.reshard(w_q, (1, HIDDEN, HIDDEN @ cta.head), "smem")
The corresponding annotated report prints an expanded form like:
v1 = reshard(w_q, layout=ShardLayout(
layout=Layout((1, 256, 8, 32), None),
attrs=(S(2),),
mesh=cta,
), storage=smem)
Likewise, Stage5_CachePrepared authoring uses a Python slice:
k_cache[:, base : base + BLOCK, :, :]
but the report prints a generated IR operation:
v16 = slice(k_cache, (0, v15, 0, 0), sizes=(1, 128, 2, 32), strides=(1, 1, 1, 1))
Expected behavior
Provide one of these source-aligned forms in analysis output:
- Preserve the original authoring expression and source location alongside each report record.
- Add a stable source mapping from each generated IR call/value back to the authoring expression.
- Clearly label the output as lowered IR and provide a source-level rendering for tutorial/agent use.
The key requirement is that reshard layouts and tensor slices must not look like syntax sugar or unrelated operations: the report should explain their relationship to the authoring model and preserve enough information for an agent to navigate back to the source.
Context
This was found while rendering docs/tutorial/authoring.ipynb into the installed tutorial Markdown. The generated report is numerically useful, but its current representation is misleading for a syntax/tutorial page.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the tilefoundry analyze --operands entry point and the rendering path used for docs/tutorial/authoring.ipynb. Reproduce the report for Stage4_WeightPrepared and Stage5_CachePrepared, then trace how generated IR records relate to the authoring expressions. Done means the analysis output preserves or clearly maps reshard layouts and tensor slices back to source-level syntax and locations.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation, tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100