-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Working azure download flow #106
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Thank you for your contribution @zsusswein 🚀! Your pkgdown-site is ready for download 👉 here 👈! |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
Great job @zsusswein! Some notes from the demo. Some of these may be separate issues that we deal with later:
|
This reverts commit a5d5776.
3bd0518
to
4157651
Compare
FYI @amondal2 I tagged you in case you want to take a look, but the azure stuff is kind of a mess. I'm planning on cleaning it up once this merges and tagging you and Nate to take a look. |
task_configs = [] | ||
blobs = container_client.list_blobs() | ||
|
||
for blob in blobs: | ||
if blob.creation_time > two_mins_ago: | ||
task_configs.append(blob.name) |
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.
task_configs = [] | |
blobs = container_client.list_blobs() | |
for blob in blobs: | |
if blob.creation_time > two_mins_ago: | |
task_configs.append(blob.name) | |
task_configs: list[str] = [ | |
b.name | |
for b in container_client.list_blobs() | |
if b.creation_time > two_mins_ago | |
] |
Feel free to ignore. Just adding bc I like list comprehensions.
Tracking in #116 |
# Set up task on job | ||
registry = os.environ["AZURE_CONTAINER_REGISTRY"] | ||
task_container_settings = batchmodels.TaskContainerSettings( | ||
image_name=registry + '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline:test-edit-azure-flow', |
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.
Will this break if we try and run it on a different branch?
docker run --mount type=bind,source=$(PWD),target=/cfa-epinow2-pipeline -it \ | ||
--env-file .env \ | ||
--rm $(REGISTRY)$(IMAGE_NAME):test-$(TAG) \ | ||
Rscript -e "CFAEpiNow2Pipeline::orchestrate_pipeline('$(CONFIG)', config_container = 'rt-epinow2-config', input_dir = '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline/input', output_dir = '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline', output_container = 'zs-test-pipeline-update')" |
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.
Rscript -e "CFAEpiNow2Pipeline::orchestrate_pipeline('$(CONFIG)', config_container = 'rt-epinow2-config', input_dir = '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline/input', output_dir = '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline', output_container = 'zs-test-pipeline-update')" | |
Rscript -e "CFAEpiNow2Pipeline::orchestrate_pipeline('$(CONFIG)', config_container = 'rt-epinow2-config', input_dir = '/cfa-epinow2-pipeline/input', output_dir = '/', output_container = 'zs-test-pipeline-update')" |
Use the same output dir as for the run-batch
command. This way, the file paths in the metadata will always be the same as the those created by the batch command, which is desirable for maintaining consistency in output folder structure. However, this would require changing the bind mount above to mount to the container's root, instead of /cfa-epinow2-pipeline
.
What do you think?
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 like the point about consistency, but I think we should follow the pattern of this one, not run-batch
. We want the local run to write into the bind mount, which this edit would prevent.
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.
But what if we change the bind mount to be /
inside the container for this make command?
This one turned into a bit of a mad dash to get everything ready for the demo. Everyone was able to run the pipeline locally and in Batch (success!) and I was able to run this branch in a shadow production run today. But now the branch has entirely too much content.
I'd like to get this PR open and the functionality onto main rather than polishing a long-lived feature branch. If people are on board, that would mean liberally turning feedback into issues and circling back in a series of future PRs.
Thanks for bearing with me on this one folks!