A way to make an executable target from a graph
Details
Details
added test
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R1 dagster
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/core/definitions/graph.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 341 | went with the last name i saw used, most commonly referred to as bind though I think nobody loves that name happy to rename this to whatever | |
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/core/definitions/graph.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 341 | worth taking in to consideration the name argument this will likely need to differentiate the same graph. I guess name (Optional[str]): A name for this set of resources, only required to differentiate when the same graph is made executable multiple times with different resources. isn't too bad. I my head we will present legacy pipeline_name[mode_name] and graph_name[resources_name] the same way - square bracketed in this example | |
Comment Actions
definitely not blocking on a first version, but would we plan to allow resource instances in addition to resource defs to open up the testing use case?
Comment Actions
definitely not blocking on a first version, but would we plan to allow resource instances in addition to resource defs to open up the testing use case?
I think if we would make that change here we would make it across the board ie in modedef as well
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/core/definitions/graph.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 341 | config mapping also a dimension to consider - executable_with maybe? | |
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/core/definitions/graph.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 341 | I like with_resources a lot better. For the mode_name disambiguation, we'll just have to be careful about the error messages. I think we'd currently get a 'non unique mode name' error? | |
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/core/definitions/graph.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 341 | No attachment to bind. I do think we'll end up needing some sort of generic name that spans both config-mapping and resources. Some other things we might end up wanting to allow people to supply at the time they're constructing an executable:
| |
Comment Actions
I agree with @sandyryza 's generic name framing. At least in the short term, it's likely there's non-resource things that we will need to bind upwards. Even without considering executors and loggers, config definitely seems like something we would want to include here.
Mildly related: Should you be able to do this to a solid 🤔
Comment Actions
Accepting to move this forward with the caveat of having a more generic name (for now)