Commits
Alexander Visheratin authored and GitHub committed e6c6184fee5
[JS/WebGPU] Unsqueeze operator implementation (#16138)
### Description
This PR adds an implementation of the Squeeze operator to WebGPU JSEP.
The implementation follows the [operator
schema](https://github.com/onnx/onnx/blob/main/docs/Operators.md#Unsqueeze).
To implement the `Unsqueeze` operator in the same fashion as the
`Squeeze`, I added the `ComputeOutputShape()` method to the
`UnsqueezeBase` class and made some slight modifications. Please let me
know if it is a bad idea and if I should move this method to the JS
implementation.
I also uncommented test case lines in the `suite-test-list.jsonc` file
for both Squeeze and Unsqueeze operators following @hariharans29's
[comment](https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime/pull/16024#issuecomment-1565113633).
### How was it tested
1. I created a model with only one operator:
```Python
import onnx.helper
node = onnx.helper.make_node(
"Unsqueeze",
inputs=["T", "axes"],
outputs=["y"],
)
graph = onnx.helper.make_graph([node], "test", [onnx.helper.make_tensor_value_info("T", 1, [3, 4, 5]), onnx.helper.make_tensor_value_info("axes", 7, [2])], [onnx.helper.make_tensor_value_info("y", 1, [3, 1, 4, 5, 1])])
onnx.save(onnx.helper.make_model(graph), "unsqueeze.onnx")
```
2. I compiled the runtime using @fs-eire's
[instructions](https://gist.github.com/fs-eire/a55b2c7e10a6864b9602c279b8b75dce).
3. I ran the test models in the browser using this minimal setup:
```HTML
<html>
<script src=".\dist\ort.webgpu.min.js"></script>
<script>
async function run() {
const session = await ort.InferenceSession.create('unsqueeze.onnx', {executionProviders: ['webgpu']});
console.log(session);
const input = new ort.Tensor('float32', new Float32Array(60), [3, 4, 5]);
const dim = new ort.Tensor('int64', [1n, 4n], [2]);
const output = await session.run({ "T": input, "axes": dim });
console.log(output);
}
run();
</script>
</html>
```
### Motivation and Context
Improve operator coverage for WebGPU JSEP.