Add option to disable_dependencies for cache #477
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce a new boolean parameter, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
executorlib/cache/executor.py (2)
35-35: Enhance parameter documentation for clarity.While the parameter addition is well-structured, the documentation could be more descriptive about the implications of disabling dependencies.
Consider expanding the documentation to:
- disable_dependencies (boolean): Disable resolving future objects during the submission. + disable_dependencies (boolean): When True, disables resolving of future objects during task submission. + This can improve performance when tasks are independent but will raise ValueError if futures are used as arguments.Also applies to: 49-49
95-95: Consider using a configuration object pattern.The function signature is getting quite long with 13 parameters. While the parameter addition is correct, consider refactoring to use a configuration object pattern for better maintainability.
Example approach:
@dataclass class FileExecutorConfig: max_workers: int = 1 backend: str = "pysqa_flux" max_cores: int = 1 cache_directory: Optional[str] = None resource_dict: Optional[dict] = None flux_executor: Any = None flux_executor_pmi_mode: Optional[str] = None flux_executor_nesting: bool = False pysqa_config_directory: Optional[str] = None hostname_localhost: Optional[bool] = None block_allocation: bool = False init_function: Optional[callable] = None disable_dependencies: bool = False def create_file_executor(config: FileExecutorConfig) -> FileExecutor: if config.cache_directory is None: config.cache_directory = "executorlib_cache" # ... rest of the validation logic ... return FileExecutor( cache_directory=config.cache_directory, resource_dict=config.resource_dict, pysqa_config_directory=config.pysqa_config_directory, backend=config.backend.split("pysqa_")[-1], disable_dependencies=config.disable_dependencies, )Also applies to: 117-117
tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py (2)
49-54: LGTM! Consider simplifying the with statements.The test correctly verifies that attempting to use futures as arguments when dependencies are disabled raises a ValueError.
Consider combining the nested
withstatements for better readability:- with self.assertRaises(ValueError): - with FileExecutor( - execute_function=execute_in_subprocess, disable_dependencies=True - ) as exe: - exe.submit(my_funct, 1, b=exe.submit(my_funct, 1, b=2)) + with self.assertRaises(ValueError), FileExecutor( + execute_function=execute_in_subprocess, disable_dependencies=True + ) as exe: + exe.submit(my_funct, 1, b=exe.submit(my_funct, 1, b=2))🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
50-53: Use a single
withstatement with multiple contexts instead of nestedwithstatementsCombine
withstatements(SIM117)
49-54: Consider adding more test cases for comprehensive coverage.While the current test verifies the error case, consider adding tests for:
- Success case with disable_dependencies=False (baseline)
- Different variations of dependency usage (args vs kwargs)
- Edge cases like None values or empty futures
Would you like me to help generate these additional test cases?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
50-53: Use a single
withstatement with multiple contexts instead of nestedwithstatementsCombine
withstatements(SIM117)
executorlib/cache/shared.py (1)
120-123: Consider enhancing error handlingThe error handling could be improved in two ways:
- Move the future validation earlier in the function to fail fast before any processing
- Provide more context in the error message about what the user should do instead
Consider this enhancement:
- raise ValueError( - "Future objects are not supported as input if disable_dependencies=True." - ) + raise ValueError( + "Future objects detected in input but dependencies are disabled. " + "Either enable dependencies by setting disable_dependencies=False " + "or ensure all inputs are concrete values instead of futures." + )executorlib/__init__.py (3)
197-198: Consider movingdisable_dependenciesparameter closer to related parameters.For better readability and maintainability, consider grouping the
disable_dependenciesparameter with other control flow parameters likeblock_allocationandinit_function.
Line range hint
41-42: Enhance documentation with examples and impact.While the documentation clearly states the purpose of
disable_dependencies, it would be helpful to:
- Add examples showing usage with and without dependencies
- Document the impact on dependency resolution
- Explain when users should consider disabling dependencies
Consider adding examples like:
# With dependencies (default) with Executor() as executor: future1 = executor.submit(task1) # future1 can be used as input to task2 future2 = executor.submit(task2, future1) # With dependencies disabled with Executor(disable_dependencies=True) as executor: # Direct values must be used, futures as inputs will raise ValueError result1 = executor.submit(task1).result() result2 = executor.submit(task2, result1)Also applies to: 90-91
Based on the validation function implementations, I can now provide the final response:
Validation checks need to be moved before the branching logic
The current validation implementation reveals that:
check_refresh_rateraises an error if refresh_rate is not 0.01, which is only valid when dependencies are disabledcheck_plot_dependency_graphraises an error if plot_dependency_graph is True, which is only valid when dependencies are disabledcheck_pysqa_config_directoryraises an error if pysqa_config_directory is not None, which is only valid for non-pysqa backendsThe validation checks should be moved before the branching logic since:
- These parameters are mutually exclusive with certain execution modes
- Early validation provides clearer error messages
- Reduces code duplication
def create_executor_from_config( disable_dependencies: bool = False, ... ) -> Union[ExecutorBase, ExecutorWithDependencies]: if backend != "pysqa": _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) if disable_dependencies: _check_plot_dependency_graph(plot_dependency_graph=plot_dependency_graph) _check_refresh_rate(refresh_rate=refresh_rate) if backend == "pysqa": return ExecutorPySQA(...) elif not disable_dependencies: return ExecutorWithDependencies(...) else: return create_executor(...)🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
199-238: Review and refactor validation checks.There are several concerns with the current validation logic:
_check_pysqa_config_directoryis redundantly called in both branches whendisable_dependenciesis True_check_plot_dependency_graphand_check_refresh_rateare only called in the last branch- The behavior differences between branches need verification
Consider refactoring the validation checks:
elif not disable_dependencies: - _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) return ExecutorWithDependencies( # ... parameters ... ) else: + # Common validations _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) _check_plot_dependency_graph(plot_dependency_graph=plot_dependency_graph) _check_refresh_rate(refresh_rate=refresh_rate) return create_executor( # ... parameters ... )Let's verify the behavior differences between branches:
Let me gather more information about the validation functions and their implementations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze the differences in validation and execution paths # Check validation functions implementation echo "Checking validation function implementations:" rg -A 5 "_check_p(lot_dependency_graph|ysqa_config_directory|refresh_rate)" # Check ExecutorWithDependencies vs create_executor differences echo "Checking executor implementations:" rg -A 10 "class ExecutorWithDependencies|def create_executor"Length of output: 4254
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the actual implementation of validation functions echo "Checking validation function implementations:" rg -A 10 "def check_(plot_dependency_graph|pysqa_config_directory|refresh_rate)" executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py # Check if ExecutorWithDependencies uses these parameters echo "Checking ExecutorWithDependencies parameter usage:" ast-grep --pattern 'class ExecutorWithDependencies { $$$ def __init__($$$) { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 1531
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
executorlib/__init__.py(1 hunks)executorlib/cache/executor.py(5 hunks)executorlib/cache/shared.py(2 hunks)tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py
50-53: Use a single with statement with multiple contexts instead of nested with statements
Combine with statements
(SIM117)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
executorlib/cache/executor.py (2)
76-78: LGTM! Parameter propagation is correct.
The disable_dependencies parameter is properly passed through to the execute_tasks_h5 function.
35-35: Verify consistent parameter usage across the codebase.
Let's verify that the disable_dependencies parameter is consistently implemented across all related components.
Also applies to: 76-76, 95-95
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual implementation and usage of disable_dependencies to ensure consistency.
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response as I have sufficient information about the implementation and usage of disable_dependencies.
Parameter implementation is consistent across the codebase
The disable_dependencies parameter is properly implemented and used consistently:
- It's well-documented in
executorlib/__init__.pywith clear purpose and behavior - Correctly propagated through the executor chain in
executorlib/cache/executor.py - Proper validation and error handling in
executorlib/cache/shared.pywhen future objects are used withdisable_dependencies=True - Test coverage exists in multiple test files showing both enabled and disabled states
- Appropriate warning messages in
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.pyfor parameter conflicts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent implementation of disable_dependencies parameter
# Check for the parameter in related files
echo "Checking for disable_dependencies parameter usage:"
rg -l "disable_dependencies"
# Check for potential missing implementations
echo -e "\nChecking for executor-related files that might need the parameter:"
fd -e py -x grep -l "executor" {} \; | grep -i "executor"
Length of output: 1663
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual implementation and usage of disable_dependencies parameter
# Check function signatures and parameter usage
echo "Checking function signatures and parameter usage:"
rg -A 5 "disable_dependencies"
# Check specific executor class implementations
echo -e "\nChecking executor class implementations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ {
$$$
def __init__($$$, disable_dependencies$$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 9498
executorlib/cache/shared.py (3)
57-57: LGTM: Well-structured parameter addition
The new parameter is properly typed, has a sensible default value for backward compatibility, and follows Python's parameter ordering conventions.
115-124: LGTM: Clean implementation of dependency control
The implementation correctly handles both cases:
- When dependencies are enabled: maintains original behavior
- When dependencies are disabled: prevents future usage and sets empty dependency list
57-57: Verify integration and test coverage
The addition of disable_dependencies is a significant change to the task execution logic. Let's verify its integration and test coverage.
Also applies to: 115-124
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the implementation and test coverage.
Based on the gathered context, I can now provide the final response:
The disable_dependencies parameter is properly integrated and tested
The implementation is well-integrated across the codebase with:
- Clear documentation in
executorlib/__init__.py - Proper implementation in
executorlib/cache/shared.pywith appropriate error handling - Test coverage in multiple test files:
tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py: Tests error cases with futurestests/test_executor_backend_mpi_noblock.py: Tests both enabled and disabled states
The parameter is used consistently and has appropriate validation checks in inputcheck.py for related parameters like refresh_rate and plot_dependency_graph.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check integration points and test coverage
# Test 1: Verify all callers of execute_tasks_h5 are updated
echo "Checking callers of execute_tasks_h5:"
rg "execute_tasks_h5\(" --type py
# Test 2: Verify test coverage
echo -e "\nChecking test coverage for disable_dependencies:"
rg "disable_dependencies.*=.*True" --type py
Length of output: 664
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation details and test coverage
# Look for the implementation details around disable_dependencies
echo "Implementation context:"
rg -B 2 -A 4 "disable_dependencies" --type py
# Check test assertions and scenarios
echo -e "\nTest assertions:"
rg "assert.*disable_dependencies" --type py
Length of output: 9634
executorlib/__init__.py (1)
Line range hint 40-41: LGTM: Parameter addition is consistent and well-documented.
The disable_dependencies parameter is correctly added to both __init__ and __new__ methods with appropriate type annotation and a safe default value of False.
Also applies to: 89-90
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
disable_dependenciesparameter to theExecutorandFileExecutorclasses, allowing users to control dependency resolution during task submission.execute_tasks_h5function to handle task execution with or without dependencies.Bug Fixes
ValueErrorwhen tasks with dependencies are submitted whiledisable_dependenciesis set toTrue.Tests