Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2023. It is now read-only.

Proposal: Keep populating execution config attributes from fallbacks #412

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 4, 2022

Conversation

katrogan
Copy link
Contributor

@katrogan katrogan commented Apr 21, 2022

Signed-off-by: Katrina Rogan katroganGH@gmail.com

TL;DR

Keep populating execution config attributes from fallbacks

The ExecutionConfig object only exists as a collection at the MatchableAttribute layer.

But the specific fields it contains are configurable at the CreateExecutionRequest and LaunchPlan spec levels, individually.

If a user sets one of these fields in the CreateExecutionRequest and LaunchPlan spec we should proceed with fallback for other values. This way if say, SecurityCtx is defined at CreateExecutionRequest but RawOutputMetadataPrefix is in the LaunchPlan, the RawOutputMetadataPrefix should not be set to empty at the end of the resolution.

Type

  • Bug Fix
  • Feature
  • Plugin

Are all requirements met?

  • Code completed
  • Smoke tested
  • Unit tests added
  • Code documentation added
  • Any pending items have an associated Issue

Complete description

How did you fix the bug, make the feature etc. Link to any design docs etc

Tracking Issue

flyteorg/flyte#2448

Follow-up issue

NA
OR
https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte/issues/

Signed-off-by: Katrina Rogan <katroganGH@gmail.com>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 21, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #412 (6be05dd) into master (6591fa2) will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #412      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.25%   61.13%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         154      154              
  Lines       11101    11088      -13     
==========================================
- Hits         6800     6779      -21     
- Misses       3598     3605       +7     
- Partials      703      704       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 60.09% <100.00%> (-0.11%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pkg/manager/impl/execution_manager.go 74.64% <100.00%> (-0.48%) ⬇️
...implementations/workflow_execution_event_writer.go 40.00% <0.00%> (-40.00%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6591fa2...6be05dd. Read the comment docs.

EngHabu
EngHabu previously approved these changes Apr 22, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@EngHabu EngHabu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about fields within SecurityContext (for example)? should they get merged... merging is hard :D as you are well aware...

Signed-off-by: Katrina Rogan <katroganGH@gmail.com>
@katrogan
Copy link
Contributor Author

katrogan commented May 3, 2022

How about fields within SecurityContext (for example)? should they get merged

Good question, I think it's okay to consider one of iam role or k8s service account being set as treating the entire message be the definitive value. What do you think, is this intuitive?

@katrogan katrogan requested a review from EngHabu May 3, 2022 21:01
@EngHabu EngHabu merged commit 431ac3b into master May 4, 2022
@EngHabu EngHabu deleted the execution-config branch May 4, 2022 21:01
eapolinario pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2023
Signed-off-by: Katrina Rogan <katroganGH@gmail.com>
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.

2 participants