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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Use hipercow_resources when running tasks #63
Use hipercow_resources when running tasks #63
Changes from 8 commits
38140f1
f70da8f
b9bf38b
8dffa58
28d8d2d
fc945a5
3e6639d
9986703
53fe7fe
1addbb8
ffc261b
8344d61
367c3d8
6bcf910
e0b8c00
318e99f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Hmm. By doing this (with the assignment of
resources$queue$computed
) we do open the door to the users sneaking a different queue through here if they are sufficiently motivated. Perhaps that's ok?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.
So the only thing that gets changed here in the return is the queue gets default-ised if it was null - which would be good to do somewhere - I prefer that to having the user to explicitly talk about the queue.
I wonder if along with the discussion on when to turn "tonight" into a real time etc.... perhaps we really do have two stages of valdation here, the first one for all the syntactic stuff, and theoretical checks, and the second at last minute when we translate the timings, fill in the queue with a default if it was left NULL, and flag the sort of failures we'd only see when we consider the actual running of the job on an actual cluster...
For conversation later!
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 feel this could be done at validation, unless someone sits on their resources a long time.
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 am in two minds about this. I wonder if people might create a couple of resource objects for their "test_job" and their "real_job" and their "massive_job_that_always_waits_til_midnight", and then have those as kind of ready-made resources to launch their jobs in the same way as last time, without having to think about it.
I am not sure whether this is terribly likely, and might not be totally advisable - once in a while, available resources might change (but then they will need a new package version and will have to rerun their resource things anyway).
But also, I'm not sure doing the translation during submission causes any real problem does it?
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.
the only "problem" caused by doing it at submission is that there's two places to do the validation really. In particular, the validation here must never fail or it will be quite annoying for the user. We can see how this goes in practice if you want - I expect this flow will need some adjustment when it comes in contact with users, no matter what we pick.
We might sketch out a flow of validation etc as we complicate this too (environment variables and parallel configuration will all interact here too)
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.
or, have the first element of queues be default?
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.
Hmm - I think I maybe prefer saying explicitly
default_queue
thanqueues[1]
but not strongly so...