Planning Work: Extend Cylc Run (Replace Rose Suite Run) #40
Conversation
wxtim
commented
Jul 24, 2019
•
wxtim
commented
- Roadmap for small PRs to a dev branch added.
- Added a basic example suite.rc file
- Proposed changes to naming conventions
- Clarify naming conventions
- Clarify tasks to be undertaken
- Move task list near to top of plan doc, or to a separate document
- Create issues for each identified task.
- Expand on discussion of rose-suite.conf deprecation.
wxtim
force-pushed
the
rose-suite-run-proposals-changes
branch
from
61b27c4 to
88500cf
Compare
wxtim
changed the title
I prefer |
wxtim
changed the title
wxtim
force-pushed
the
rose-suite-run-proposals-changes
branch
from
c8c0315 to
c10ebdc
Compare
| - [ ] Include suite validation in `cylc flow` CLI. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| - [ ] Replace `rose-suite.conf`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like the bottom half of this list is increasingly sketchy. I'd be happier of people with bigger domain knowledge might care to colour it in a bit...
| @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ | |||
| Placeholder - populate in new PR | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not anticipated that this is the finished form of the document: One of the tasks on the work plan is, after all, to summarize the debate in this document in another PR.
wxtim
requested review from
hjoliver,
kinow,
oliver-sanders and
sadielbartholomew
- Roadmap for small PRs to a dev branch added. - Clarification of terminology for job platforms - Some thoughts on `cylc flow --options` - Added stub files for development plan documentation moved some detail on future CLI into another folder.
wxtim
force-pushed
the
rose-suite-run-proposals-changes
branch
from
4cd1201 to
4922b16
Compare
|
Should include something in this document about registering runs under the name of the template suite as discussed in June e.g.: |
|
Can I please ask @oliver-sanders and/or @sadielbartholomew and or @matthewrmshin to formally review this plan. I think I should get it in, especially as it's a little bit meta (it calls for further planning of the new names for cylc ???? and the replacement .rc files.) |
docs/proposal-rose-suite-run.md
Outdated
| * `rose suite-run` does not currently validate Rose items. This should be | ||
| changed to ensure that all aspects of the suite are validated uniformly. | ||
| * `rose suite-run` does not currently validate Rose apps against their | ||
| metadata. Rose apps should be validated against their metadata by default, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To clarify are you suggesting a Rose plugin to Cylc which validates all applications during the suite install process?
Conceptually sounds good to me but we may need to consult users before considering this as it is potentially controversial.
Rose has different levels of validation:
- Built-in (fast)
- Fail-if Warn-if (fastish)
- Macros (slow)
What level would we validate to? Would we validate optional configs?
We might want to upgrade rose macro to use asyncio or multiprocessing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe that is the general plan, but I agree, there is the possibility of some controversy. I don't really have answers to your questions and I'm open to suggestions at this point.
I suspect that validation level might validate to Fail-if Warn-if. - Might it be possible for it to print out a warning which includes the contents of the YML file required if the user wishes to change the validation level?
Co-Authored-By: Oliver Sanders <[email protected]>
…ylc-admin into rose-suite-run-proposals-changes * 'rose-suite-run-proposals-changes' of github.com:wxtim/cylc-admin: Update docs/proposal-rose-suite-run.md
|
I'm going to merge this: It's a working document under version control. Thank you all for your help on this - no doubt there will be more to come.... |
