Can we also test the error handling path?

let's look at coverage through the dagster-cron tests and then merge this if those are ok. this is not ideal but i see there are reasons for trying to ship it.

what I would like to see here is 100% branch coverage on the code in scheduler.py

I think the sync APIs really would be better served by using check_output

We should memorialize our discussion from this morning & future plans in a comment in code somewhere I think

this is great, i'd like to see a more exhaustive set of test cases (incl. multiple clauses, multiple overlapping clauses, and in the presence of composites)

requesting changes for dedupe and the docstring which is a little out of sync with the actual signature

requesting changes to surface the subprocess error info

requesting changes for clarifying comments in the docstring, this is great

i'm not sure i understand what you have in mind here - are you looking for lazy evaluation of objects other than pipeline definitions?

ah, hooray this is so good

ok for now

this looks great to me, seems like a straightforward improvement. i have a slight preference for the approach you've rejected of allowing multi-selection & reflecting it in the filter query

lgtm

this is fine, the issue is a dupe

this is so delightful

this lgtm, i will let @bengotow have the final word

hooray

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I agree with Alex and I think this is clearer and more consistent than the alternative

ah, hooray!!

I think this is a huge step forwards but will defer to @schrockn for ultimate sign off

Add tooltip for Open in Playground

yes brilliant

Rebase

Improve tests

I *really* like the second interaction; maybe we can talk about the first on this morning's call. It does feel a little hard to clear the subset selection.

@yuhan I think this observes those semantics, will add a test to demonstrate

add comment and reference to issue

sweet, this is much better

I just expanded the discussion of alternatives in the comments, but I'll expand on it here.

generate schema

feedback

Add comments

nits

schema

fixup

Reopening this for comment, now with pseudosql in the comments as well as more color on why I still think this is the right way to do it.

Rebase

still think it would be nice if @pipeline gave you this for free