Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat(job): add parameter to close stdin #14812
feat(job): add parameter to close stdin #14812
Changes from 1 commit
eb7f24b
35e13df
d738247
f83763b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
would it make sense to name this ChannelMode, and add kChannelBuffered, then use this internally to model the stderr_buffered/stdout_buffered flags? And potentially we would add
stderr
,stdout
string options to jobstart(), and deprecate the stderr_buffered/stdout_buffered booleans.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 sure if that would make sense, as that introduces more edge cases we'd need to check for.
For example, what happens when
"stdout"
is set to"null"
but an"on_stdout"
callback is provided? What does it mean when"stdin"
is set to"buffered"
?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.
At the input layer we would of course validate valid values, just as "foo" is not a valid value for the
stdin
mode parameter.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 understand that, but the point I was trying to make was that I don't know if the additional validation required results in a net reduction in complexity.
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.
It would only make sense if we actually add more flags to the jobstart() interface (e.g stdout="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.
I guess we could put most of the validation responsibility on the user. We just return an error if
"stdout"
is anything other than"null"
and"on_stdout"
is missing and vice versa.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 don't think this makes sense for the existing feature set, but perhaps it does in a PR adding "buffer" and "file" modes (so there actually are shared modes between instreams and outsteams).