[ricardoasouz]

Summary

testMissingPteFile and testMissingPtdFile fail on main. TrainingModule.load validates paths with ExecuTorchRuntime.validateFilePath, which throws Cannot load model path: path does not exist: <path> (and the same for the data path), but the tests still expect the old Cannot load model path!! <path> and Cannot load data path!! <path> messages, which #17648 removed.

The assertions also passed exception.message as the expected value, so the JUnit failure showed the two strings swapped. This updates the expected messages and passes the arguments as (expected, actual).

Found while validating #22959.

Test plan

On an x86_64 emulator (API 30), with the native library built from this branch:

./gradlew :executorch_android:connectedDebugAndroidTest \
  -Pandroid.testInstrumentationRunnerArguments.class=org.pytorch.executorch.training.TrainingModuleE2ETest

All 4 tests pass. Without this change, testMissingPteFile and testMissingPtdFile fail with a message mismatch.

cc @kirklandsign @cbilgin @nil-is-all

[pytorch-bot]

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/23480

• 📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

⚠️ 16 Awaiting Approval

As of commit 0efadb5 with merge base e0015e1 ():

AWAITING APPROVAL - The following workflows need approval before CI can run:

• Build documentation (gh)
• Build Presets (gh)
• Cadence Build & Test (gh)
• Lint (gh)
• periodic (gh)
• pull (gh)
• Test ARM Backend (gh)
• Test CoreML Backend (gh)
• Test Cortex-M Backend (gh)
• Test CPU Backend (gh)
• Test NXP Backend (gh)
• Test QNN Backend (gh)
• Test QNN Windows MSVC build (gh)
• Test Vulkan Backend (gh)
• Test WebGPU Backend (gh)
• Test XNNPACK Backend (gh)

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

[ricardoasouz]

@pytorchbot label "release notes: none"

[kirklandsign]

@claude review

[claude]

Claude finished @kirklandsign's task in 58s —— View job

---

This fix is correct and I found no issues. Both expected messages now match what ExecuTorchRuntime.validateFilePath actually throws, and the arguments are in JUnit's (expected, actual) order. Approve.

Detailed review

PR Review: #23480

Summary

The PR updates the expected messages in testMissingPteFile and testMissingPtdFile to match the current validateFilePath output, and passes assertEquals its arguments as (expected, actual). I found no issues.

• TrainingModule.load calls validateFilePath(modelPath, "model path") and validateFilePath(dataPath, "data path") (TrainingModule.kt:126-127, :140). When a file is missing, that produces "Cannot load <description>: path does not exist: <path>" (ExecuTorchRuntime.kt:46). This is exactly the new expected string in both tests.
• In testMissingPtdFile, xor.pte is copied to disk before load is called. So the model-path check passes and the data-path check throws, which means the test exercises the path it means to.
• There are no other "!! " messages left anywhere under extension/android, so no other test is stuck on the old message format.

Testing

• Optional: both tests still use assertThrows(RuntimeException::class.java). validateFilePath documents and throws IllegalArgumentException, so narrowing to that type would make the tests stricter. It isn't required for this fix.

Recommendation

Approve. Nothing blocks merging.

[nil-is-all]

@ricardoasouz PR looks good, once the branch is updated up-to-date we can approve & merge.

[ricardoasouz]

@ricardoasouz PR looks good, once the branch is updated up-to-date we can approve & merge.

Thanks @nil-is-all! I've rebased the branch onto the latest main.

[ricardoasouz]

Hi @nil-is-all and @kirklandsign,

I've rebased this PR onto the latest main and force-pushed the updated commit (0efadb5dbe).

I also rebuilt the Android x86_64 native library and reran TrainingModuleE2ETest on an API 30 emulator. All 4 tests passed, and the working tree is clean.

The PR is currently showing 16 workflows awaiting maintainer approval, including the required checks.

Could you please approve the pending workflows when convenient?

Thanks for your time and review!