Swarm: testing mutually-exclusive nodes#1636
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1636 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 44.45% 44.60% +0.14%
==========================================
Files 333 333
Lines 35850 35928 +78
==========================================
+ Hits 15937 16024 +87
+ Misses 18907 18897 -10
- Partials 1006 1007 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
1 task
damemi
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
In #1584 , I suggested a pattern for creating two parallel nodes whose execution is mutually exclusive (will run either or another, sharing the same input/output channels, but never both or none).
This PR just adds a unit test verifying that this pattern is doable in the current pipeline engine, also making sure that we don't break it in the future.
Validation