Tensorflow object detection example using RunInference

[AnandInguva]

Please add a meaningful description for your change here

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Choose reviewer(s) and mention them in a comment (R: @username).
• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI.

[github-actions]

The Workflow run is cancelling this PR. It is an earlier duplicate of 1729654 run.

[github-actions]

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

[github-actions]

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #23831 (3776806) into master (de8f4ba) will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #23831      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.91%   73.75%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         703      708       +5     
  Lines       95082    95529     +447     
==========================================
+ Hits        70278    70457     +179     
- Misses      23493    23761     +268     
  Partials     1311     1311              

Flag	Coverage Δ
python	83.69% <0.00%> (-0.30%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../examples/inference/tensorflow_object_detection.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/typehints/__init__.py	71.42% <0.00%> (-6.35%)	⬇️
...teractive/testing/integration/notebook_executor.py	28.86% <0.00%> (-1.04%)	⬇️
...dks/python/apache_beam/runners/dask/dask_runner.py	10.41% <0.00%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/dask/overrides.py	51.85% <0.00%> (ø)
.../apache_beam/typehints/arrow_type_compatibility.py	83.94% <0.00%> (ø)
...on/apache_beam/runners/dask/transform_evaluator.py	12.00% <0.00%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/typehints/batch.py	90.44% <0.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
sdks/python/apache_beam/transforms/combiners.py	93.43% <0.00%> (+0.38%)	⬆️
...apache_beam/typehints/pandas_type_compatibility.py	95.79% <0.00%> (+0.84%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @pabloem for label python.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[AnandInguva]

stop reviewer notifications

[github-actions]

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: requested by reviewer

[AnandInguva]

@damccorm Andy started this and this was used to provide benchmarks for NVIDIA and Dataflow blog. What should we do about this PR?

[yeandy]

Is there any harm in adding this example? Especially to showcase TF w/ GPUs?

(Though we don't have to do it for the sake of adding more. I'll leave the decision up to y'all.)

[damccorm]

I don't mind adding it, but I'm not sure that it adds a ton of value given that we now have #23456; I think it would take at least a little additional work to get this ready (we'd at least need a test) and I'd probably vote we focus on other things. If either of you feels differently and wants to take it forward, I'm happy to review and don't have a problem adding it

[yeandy]

I agree that the incremental value-add (especially in the short-term) isn't that high. I don't know the details of your bandwidths, so if there are higher priorities, I think it's ok to table this. We can pick this up from the backlog (keep this draft PR or create an issue?) if there's more time in the future, or a new contributor wants to work on this.

[damccorm]

Keeping it in draft seems fine to me, its got all the context we'd need to pick it back up

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 60 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the [email protected] list. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.