Skip to content

Conversation

@amandarichardsonn
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn self-assigned this May 20, 2024
@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn added type: feature Issues that include feature request or feature idea ignore-for-release labels May 20, 2024
@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn requested review from MattToast and removed request for mellis13 May 21, 2024 20:25
@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn changed the title BatchSettings and LaunchSettings Refactor BatchSettings, LaunchSettings, Command and CommandList Refactor May 23, 2024
@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn changed the title BatchSettings, LaunchSettings, Command and CommandList Refactor BatchSettings, LaunchSettings, Command, CommandList and LaunchCommand Refactor May 30, 2024
@MattToast MattToast self-requested a review May 31, 2024 17:44
Copy link
Member

@MattToast MattToast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! I have some small stylistic notes in addition to the slight API direction change that we discussed/tentatively agreed upon offline as a group. Overall, I think this is really starting to come together!!

Copy link
Member

@MattToast MattToast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! A couple of minor nits here and there, and looks like you might have a couple of nasty conflicts, but as soon as that is sorted out, this looks about ready to go on my end!!

}
localLauncher = LaunchSettings(launcher=LauncherType.Local, env_vars=env_vars)
assert isinstance(localLauncher._arg_builder, LocalArgBuilder)
assert localLauncher.format_env_vars() == ["A=a", "B=", "C=", "D=12"] No newline at end of file
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not wrong, just a confirmation; is an env var dict {"KEY": ""} functionally equivalent to {"KEY": None}? It looks like that is what this test is testing for, but my intuition would be that {"KEY": None} would make sure that the "KEY" environment variable was unset from the executing environment. Might be worth getting more by in form the group on this issue, as I think we have been inconsistent in the past.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 59.90099% with 162 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (smartsim-refactor@d058213). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Current head 72987b4 differs from pull request most recent head ffd95d7

Please upload reports for the commit ffd95d7 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##             smartsim-refactor     #587   +/-   ##
====================================================
  Coverage                     ?   33.09%           
====================================================
  Files                        ?       99           
  Lines                        ?     6191           
  Branches                     ?        0           
====================================================
  Hits                         ?     2049           
  Misses                       ?     4142           
  Partials                     ?        0           
Files Coverage Δ
smartsim/_core/commands/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/_core/launcher/step/localStep.py 33.33% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/_core/launcher/step/mpiStep.py 34.72% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/_core/launcher/step/step.py 42.30% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/_core/utils/helpers.py 32.50% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/database/orchestrator.py 25.58% <ø> (ø)
smartsim/entity/dbnode.py 36.75% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/entity/ensemble.py 27.94% <100.00%> (ø)
smartsim/entity/entity.py 56.66% <ø> (ø)
smartsim/entity/model.py 32.38% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 21 more

Copy link
Member

@MattToast MattToast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rubber stamping as promised! Looks good to me!! Just add a from __future__ import annotations to smartsim/settings/common.py to get past the CI with Python 3.9

@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn merged commit edb8364 into CrayLabs:smartsim-refactor Jun 13, 2024
@amandarichardsonn amandarichardsonn deleted the settings-refactor branch June 13, 2024 19:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ignore-for-release type: feature Issues that include feature request or feature idea

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants