Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 10, 2023. It is now read-only.

Fix out of date documentation #89

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

chu11
Copy link
Member

@chu11 chu11 commented Feb 9, 2023

What was meant to be a tiny fix b/c of something I noticed ended up into this ridiculous exercise which I'm not entirely convinced was worth it. But I figure, its better than what was there before :-) And we may want to eventually use this as a beginning "template" for writing tutorials in flux-docs.

Did not review if the code is actually any good anymore. This is mostly documentation updates. When I fixed example code, its b/c I wanted new example output and then found something wrong along the way. Didn't run every example, maybe I'll do that as a follow up. I know atleast one (data-conduit) outright doesn't work (But it compiles! so we're further along than before).

Side note regarding my fix: Re-order slurm setup steps, I didn't run every example, but I don't believe the re-order matters in any of them. i.e. we don't need to set an environment variable before launching flux, its ok to do it afterwards.

Problem: README files have some trailing whitespace.

Remove it.
Problem: Documentation recommends user use `flux job info` to get
job information, such as the resource R.  This is no longer recommended.

Solution: Remove documentation about using `flux job info`.  User should
just use `flux jobs`.
Problem: An out of date comment says that jobs should be listed
in the KVS.

Remove it, just say to list running jobs via flux jobs.
Problem: The flux jobs output in the job-submit-cli README is out
of date.

Update it.
Problem: The example uses an old command line option for "flux job id"

Update the command usage.
Problem: The example output is out of date.

Update it.
Problem: The default job id output example is using the old decimal
output.

Update output to newer f58 format.
Problem: The usage of "flux job id" was output of date.

Update it and the resulting output.
Problem: The example did not compile because of API changes.

Fix it.
Problem: The default job id output example is using the old decimal
output.

Update output to newer f58 format.
Problem: Several example scripts were not executable by default.

Update perms.
Problem: Several README files document the old "flux submit".

Update to "flux mini submit".
Problem: For some reason in some README files, tcsh environment
instructions are given in some sections but not others.

Make sure tcsh environment instructions are listed along with bash/zsh.
Problem: For some reason in a number of README files, the two steps
to start a Flux instance via slurm are not grouped together. i.e.

Step 1: `salloc -N3 -ppdebug`
Step # > 2: `srun --pty --mpi=none -N3 flux start -o,-S,log-filename=out`

Solution: Put the slurm steps together and renumber accordingly.
Problem: A lot of documentation only lists how to launch Flux under Slurm.

Add documentation on how to get resources via Flux.
@vsoch
Copy link
Member

vsoch commented Feb 9, 2023

I do think it would be worth updating the examples here, even if we ultimately intend to do them over in the docs! I for one would need to use them as a guide (and try / learn as I go) to write new ones.

@chu11
Copy link
Member Author

chu11 commented Feb 9, 2023

per discussion in #90 we will be archiving this repo, moving everything over to flux-docs in time.

@chu11 chu11 closed this Feb 9, 2023
@grondo
Copy link
Contributor

grondo commented Feb 9, 2023

Well I didn't see this PR at first @chu11. We might as well merge what you've done already, then archive this repo, with a TODO to move motivating examples into flux-docs. (If it makes more work for you though to merge what you had, then I'd say skip it.)

@chu11
Copy link
Member Author

chu11 commented Feb 9, 2023

i guess at this point it would just manual merges, i'm fine with it either way :-)

@vsoch
Copy link
Member

vsoch commented Feb 9, 2023

Agree we should merge! It's not worth losing that hard work that improves the current state of the repo.

@chu11 chu11 reopened this Feb 9, 2023
@chu11
Copy link
Member Author

chu11 commented Feb 9, 2023

ok re-opened

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants