- User Since
- Mar 20 2019, 8:25 PM (61 w, 4 d)
think i got it
Fri, May 22
ya i think those last few naming bits are the only issues i can see
ill dig in on this
I didnt read close enough - communicate does wait for close. As seen by test failures - the mystery continues.
Thu, May 21
p sure this was me: i in fact can not spell
where is that in the diff i dont see any ref to dev null
how does this fix the catalina thing?
but its not that much code were shuffling around so ill let you make the call
less is more
Wed, May 20
looks reasonable so far - think its worth updating this diff til it functions as a proper run launcher
In all of these dagit cases, we're fetching the pipeline in a sub-component where the container component has already fetched the pipeline.
We may hit an error case in which dagit gets into a bad state in between requests, or we hit a framework bug while resolving some downstream piece of data, but these should be extremely rare.
There is a deeper issue with the compute_log_manager that I decided to punt on debugging.
dont add new class
Tue, May 19
met to discuss this - @schrockn was able to help outline how using the dotted notation for all composite config (subselected or not) instead of the hierarchal structure or a hybrid would make sense. The example of vscode settings helps us believe this as likely a better end user experience.
codepointer is a little awkward - cant think of anything better though. Maybe code_pointer?
I definitely think this is better than trying to re-derive the pipeline from the function args
Mon, May 18
Fri, May 15
Did you guys see the picture i drew in an earlier comment? I have a hard time reconciling a mental model that makes sense for subsetting in to a composite where maintaining the original config structure makes sense. I agree that this is a gnarly user experience - but I think its because subsetting in to a composite is fundamentally complex and that complexity is accurately exposed to the user. I think maintaining the config structure will mask the complexity causing greater confusion.
should be fine but would be nice to have the motivation written down in the diff summary
can we do this at ReconstructableRepo creation instead? Lets take the time to figure out how to have a test in place for this