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
Sign task-erred
with run_id
and reject outdated responses
#7933
Conversation
task-erred
with run_id
and reject outdated responses #task-erred
with run_id
and reject outdated responses
Unit Test ResultsSee test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests. 20 files + 20 20 suites +20 11h 27m 10s ⏱️ + 11h 27m 10s For more details on these failures and errors, see this check. Results for commit 23259b1. ± Comparison against base commit cf97a7c. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
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.
Could use an extra test; but on the other hand it could be left to a separate PR
instructions.append(TaskErredMsg.from_task(ts, stimulus_id=ev.stimulus_id)) | ||
instructions.append( | ||
TaskErredMsg.from_task(ts, run_id=ev.run_id, stimulus_id=ev.stimulus_id) | ||
) |
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.
coverage says we never test this use case.
This is not something you did; but would you mind taking the opportunity to add a unit test for it? It's a fairly big blind spot.
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'm not even sure if the code here is correct. I would assume that in this case (especially with the task-erred signing) this task should rather be released and recomputed instead of being reported erred.
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.
Agreed, I think that in this case as well as the case above for ts.state == "memory"
, we should probably recompute instead of acting based on the existing result. I will create a follow-up issue.
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.
Changes LGTM
I agree with @crusaderky that we should write a test for that one case but I suggest to do this in a separate PR. As it is, this PR is improving main and the additional edge case is an increase in scope, particularly since I'm not entirely certain if the current code is even correct.
Considering this is not urgent, I'll leave merging up to @hendrikmakait once he's back
instructions.append(TaskErredMsg.from_task(ts, stimulus_id=ev.stimulus_id)) | ||
instructions.append( | ||
TaskErredMsg.from_task(ts, run_id=ev.run_id, stimulus_id=ev.stimulus_id) | ||
) |
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'm not even sure if the code here is correct. I would assume that in this case (especially with the task-erred signing) this task should rather be released and recomputed instead of being reported erred.
Co-authored-by: crusaderky <crusaderky@gmail.com>
Closes #7489
pre-commit run --all-files