🎨⚗️Comp backend/bugfix/work stealing (⚠️ devops)

[sanderegg]

What do these changes do?

As noted while testing, there are some cases where the dask-workers are not balancing the workload optimally.
As explained in the dask-distributed documentation, the queue of each worker may be adjusted by changing the number of threads a worker provides and/or the worker-saturation. Since the first one is easily changeable, this PR allows to do just that.
In a billable product where 1 machine can run 1 job it also does not really make sense to provide more than 1 thread per worker.

Therefore a new ENV is introduced at the clusters-keeper service level.

Bonus:

• improvements to e2e playwright code in general and for the sleepers in particular

Related issue/s

How to test

Dev Checklist

• No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

DevOps Checklist

• New ENVironment variable CLUSTERS_KEEPER_DASK_NTHREADS (see https://git.speag.com/oSparc/osparc-ops-deployment-configuration/-/merge_requests/306)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ed71fd7) 81.9% compared to head (c14c0a1) 87.3%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #5261      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage    81.9%   87.3%    +5.4%     
=========================================
  Files         394    1302     +908     
  Lines       14367   53251   +38884     
  Branches      381    1167     +786     
=========================================
+ Hits        11767   46491   +34724     
- Misses       2528    6511    +3983     
- Partials       72     249     +177     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	65.0% <ø> (?)
unittests	85.1% <100.0%> (+3.2%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
...c/simcore_service_clusters_keeper/core/settings.py	95.8% <100.0%> (ø)
.../simcore_service_clusters_keeper/utils/clusters.py	75.0% <ø> (ø)

... and 909 files with indirect coverage changes

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[matusdrobuliak66]

nice, thanks!

[YuryHrytsuk]

Is the new ENV safe? Can we merge it immediately for all deployments?

[GitHK]

👍

[sanderegg]

Is the new ENV safe? Can we merge it immediately for all deployments?

@YuryHrytsuk : I am not sure why it would not be safe. it is an addition, so yes it is fully safe or am I missing something there?

[YuryHrytsuk]

Is the new ENV safe? Can we merge it immediately for all deployments?

@YuryHrytsuk : I am not sure why it would not be safe. it is an addition, so yes it is fully safe or am I missing something there?

No worries. I am asking because I don't know