Working on memory issue during tests for TorchSharp

[michaelgsharp]

We are excited to review your PR.

So we can do the best job, please check:

• [ ] There's a descriptive title that will make sense to other developers some time from now.
• [ ] There's associated issues. All PR's should have issue(s) associated - unless a trivial self-evident change such as fixing a typo. You can use the format Fixes #nnnn in your description to cause GitHub to automatically close the issue(s) when your PR is merged.
• [ ] Your change description explains what the change does, why you chose your approach, and anything else that reviewers should know.
• [ ] You have included any necessary tests in the same PR.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.08795% with 67 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.03%. Comparing base (902102e) to head (8b6fa30). Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7022      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.80%   69.03%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files        1249     1261      +12     
  Lines      249686   252446    +2760     
  Branches    25485    25973     +488     
==========================================
+ Hits       171795   174272    +2477     
- Misses      71294    71510     +216     
- Partials     6597     6664      +67     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Debug	69.03% <89.08%> (+0.22%)	:arrow_up:
production	63.52% <92.73%> (+0.25%)	:arrow_up:
test	88.61% <48.00%> (+0.20%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
.../Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/Attention.cs	98.87% <100.00%> (+0.22%)	:arrow_up:
...ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/AutoFormerV2Backbone.cs	95.60% <100.00%> (+0.86%)	:arrow_up:
...ft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/AutoFormerV2Block.cs	90.17% <100.00%> (+1.28%)	:arrow_up:
...crosoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/AutoformerV2.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/BasicLayer.cs	95.12% <100.00%> (+0.83%)	:arrow_up:
...c/Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/Conv2dBN.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/ConvLayer.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/ConvModule.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/FPN.cs	98.55% <100.00%> (+0.30%)	:arrow_up:
src/Microsoft.ML.TorchSharp/AutoFormerV2/MBConv.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 37 more

... and 37 files with indirect coverage changes

[michaelgsharp]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).

[michaelgsharp]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).

[michaelgsharp]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).

[ericstj]

Seems like CA2213 should have caught these, but it's disabled. It would be good to re-enable it and ensure it catches these problems and ensure we got them all. Separately we might need to have an audit of all of our ruleset (compare with runtime) to see if we have others disabled.

[michaelgsharp]

So I just tried to enable CA2213 and we have a LOT of issues with it in our repo. I think it would be better to have a separate PR that does just that by itself, as it seems like it will be a decent amount of changes.

[michaelgsharp]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).