Feat: allow marking audits as [non-]blocking at use site #2813
Conversation
|
FYI @plaflamme |
|
Can we please update documentation |
| @@ -831,6 +831,10 @@ def _audit( | |||
| skipped=True, | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| # Model's "blocking" argument takes precedence over the audit's default setting | |||
| blocking = audit_args.pop("blocking", None) | |||
| blocking = blocking == exp.true() if blocking else audit.blocking | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wonder if there's a better way to detect truthy
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea I was looking for a better way too, but didn't find something.. I thought of overriding __eq__ for Boolean to check for True / False but didn't like the idea much. Open to suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this mean we can't pass a result of a macro in here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or I guess it will be evaluated during rendering? Can we have a test for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me take a look, I didn't think much about this use case but it makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done - check out 15d6cab. Also tested in a dummy project, seems to be working fine.
georgesittas
force-pushed
the
jo/set_audit_blocking_inline
branch
from
2d7b2dc
to
6609629
Compare
Done, thanks for pointing it out 👍 |
Until now, audits could be marked as blocking (default) or non-blocking only at their definition. Some users reasonably found this counter-intuitive, since the audit's logic and whether it blocks execution are orthogonal concepts.
This PR adds support for marking an audit as blocking or non-blocking at its use-site, i.e. in a model that references it. The syntax to do that is demonstrated below:
MODEL ( name model_name, kind FULL, audits ( some_audit(blocking := false) ) ); ...