-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
BatchSettings, LaunchSettings, Command, CommandList and LaunchCommand Refactor #587
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
BatchSettings, LaunchSettings, Command, CommandList and LaunchCommand Refactor #587
Conversation
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.
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!!
MattToast
left a comment
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.
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 |
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.
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 ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## smartsim-refactor #587 +/- ##
====================================================
Coverage ? 33.09%
====================================================
Files ? 99
Lines ? 6191
Branches ? 0
====================================================
Hits ? 2049
Misses ? 4142
Partials ? 0
|
…martSim into settings-refactor
MattToast
left a comment
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.
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
No description provided.