-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hash change guards #698
Hash change guards #698
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #698 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.65% 83.93% +0.27%
==========================================
Files 24 24
Lines 4986 5029 +43
Branches 1416 1429 +13
==========================================
+ Hits 4171 4221 +50
+ Misses 809 802 -7
Partials 6 6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
I believe this is good for review now. The new SLURM test keeps on getting stuck somewhere but I assume that it isn't related |
076fe0a
to
240a9d0
Compare
NB: I'm not sure why the coverage is down. It seems to be an issue with the dask submitter code |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM with minor comments / questions which might be due to my own ignorance or overlook.
indeed looks like the coverage has dropped, what is weird, since for some time we didn't test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! I think it is really a great improvement to the debugging options for Pydra
I don't trust codecov in this instance (and others). The dask test is passing so it couldn't be missing the Dask submitter, which is where the bulk of the coverage drop comes from (otherwise it would be a coverage increase I believe) |
1849c84
to
e776f6a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your patience. Overall it seems to do the job. I think cleaner approaches could be worked out, but nothing here will prevent coming up with them later.
A couple small suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess I could have made suggestions...
…asks are blocked by referencing Workflow.inputs._graph_checksums. Reworked blocked tasks unittest so that it now raises an error again
…) in order to retain hidden _hashes member used to provided detailed information on any inadvertant hash changes pre/post run
…altered spec.hash() function
… that hash changes are being detected
Co-authored-by: Chris Markiewicz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Chris Markiewicz <[email protected]>
… a deepcopy as for some poorly behaved objects the hash of the deepcopy can be different
fe3373f
to
8a5541c
Compare
7f69636
to
4e1d4a8
Compare
@djarecka I believe this is ready to merge now |
I'm good with merging, thank you @tclose ! |
Types of changes
Summary
Addresses #681 issue
Checklist