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
updated runTheMatrix: un-used code clean and new options for IB #18208
updated runTheMatrix: un-used code clean and new options for IB #18208
Conversation
smuzaffar
commented
Apr 5, 2017
- un-used code cleanup
- new option --maxStep=n added to run only first n steps
- if --step1=True is passed then only step1 is run and for rest of the steps it generates a wf_steps.txt file with all the exact commands to be run. Note the -n -e doe snot show the exact commands (input and output files are missing)
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
A new Pull Request was created by @smuzaffar (Malik Shahzad Muzaffar) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/PyReleaseValidation @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @davidlange6, @kpedro88, @fabozzi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
Comparison job queued. |
@davidlange6 , if no objections then I would like to get this merged |
hi @smuzaffar - i'm a bit lost by the "step1only" changes, which naively look like an option that is obsoleted by the maxsteps option. Was this step1only not fully implemented before? |
currently, the |
I can update the PR so that WorkFlowRunning only use on maxStep |
this would be best I think - then the obsolete option can get removed with some warning (eventually)
… On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Malik Shahzad Muzaffar ***@***.***> wrote:
I can update the PR so that WorkFlowRunning only use on maxStep
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
+1 |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @Muzaffar, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
hold |
Pull request has been put on hold by @smuzaffar |
Pull request #18208 was updated. @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @davidlange6, @kpedro88, @fabozzi can you please check and sign again. |
unhold |