-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
✨ NEW: Add ProcessLauncher.process_cache
#213
Open
chrisjsewell
wants to merge
4
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
process_cache
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
72505e9
✨ NEW: Add `ProcessLauncher.process_cache`
chrisjsewell 2b6ef68
remove process from cache after step_until_terminated
chrisjsewell 7c08e11
Merge branch 'develop' into process_cache
chrisjsewell 69494c7
Merge branch 'develop' into process_cache
chrisjsewell File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
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 we actually use the "launch" part of the communicator but exclusively the "continue" so I don't think this will matter for our use-case, but isn't it a bit weird to be able to hit a duplicate process when launching it? When you launch it, it is the first time you are creating it and so the pid shouldn't already running as it can when continuing an existing process. I can see how there can still be a clash in generated process ids, but I think that the exception type or at the very least the message should be different from the one in
_continue
.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.
yeh as you mention, we don't use it, so this is only for completeness. I would say though, whether you continue or launch, if there are two processes with the same PID they are duplicates, so I disagree that the message should be any difference.
(if you launch twice with the same PID, this is no different to continuing twice)
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.
Not quite sure I agree. I agree that the result of having a duplicate PID is the same, however, the origin would be very different and I think that is important to reflect. When you launch a new PID is created and so it should be unique. If that is not the case, then the ID generating algorithm is fundamentally broken, which is completely different from the case in
continue
where can simply have requested to continue the same process twice.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.
just to have the lat word lol
but then you could see the origin in the traceback
this would not be the case if you specifically set the pid in
init_args
orinit_kwargs