Change Backend Names #500
Change Backend Names #500
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Warning Rate limit exceeded@jan-janssen has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 52 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
executorlib/cache/executor.py (1)
Line range hint
84-116: Consider centralizing backend validationThe file has multiple validation checks for flux-specific aspects but lacks centralized backend name validation. Consider creating a dedicated validation function for backend names, similar to the existing check functions.
Suggestions:
- Create a new validation function (e.g.,
check_backend_format) in theexecutorlib/standalone/inputcheck.pymodule- Use this function across all executor creation points to ensure consistent validation
- Consider creating an enum or constants for supported backend types to prevent typos and improve maintainability
executorlib/__init__.py (2)
200-202: Consider simplifying the conditional logicThe condition
not disable_dependencies and (plot_dependency_graph or "_allocation" in backend)is complex and could be made more readable.Consider extracting the condition into a descriptive function:
+def _should_use_dependencies(disable_dependencies: bool, plot_dependency_graph: bool, backend: str) -> bool: + return not disable_dependencies and (plot_dependency_graph or "_allocation" in backend) + def __new__(cls, ...): # ... - elif not disable_dependencies and ( - plot_dependency_graph or "_allocation" in backend - ): + elif _should_use_dependencies(disable_dependencies, plot_dependency_graph, backend):
Line range hint
204-238: Reduce code duplication in validation checksThe validation checks for
pysqa_config_directory,plot_dependency_graph, andrefresh_rateare duplicated across different execution paths.Consider moving these checks to the beginning of the method:
def __new__(cls, ...): # ... resource_dict initialization ... + + # Validate common parameters upfront + _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) + _check_plot_dependency_graph(plot_dependency_graph=plot_dependency_graph) + _check_refresh_rate(refresh_rate=refresh_rate) + if "_submission" in backend and not plot_dependency_graph: # ... first path ... elif _should_use_dependencies(disable_dependencies, plot_dependency_graph, backend): - _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) return ExecutorWithDependencies(...) else: - _check_pysqa_config_directory(pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory) - _check_plot_dependency_graph(plot_dependency_graph=plot_dependency_graph) - _check_refresh_rate(refresh_rate=refresh_rate) return create_executor(...)executorlib/interactive/executor.py (3)
Line range hint
207-216: Potential misuse of 'slurm_cmd_args' in 'flux_allocation' backendIn the
'flux_allocation'backend block,slurm_cmd_argsis being checked and deleted fromresource_dict. Sinceslurm_cmd_argsis specific to SLURM, it may not be appropriate to handle it within the Flux backend.Please review the use of
slurm_cmd_argsin the Flux backend block. Ifslurm_cmd_argsis not applicable to Flux, consider removing these references to prevent confusion and potential errors.
Line range hint
258-266: Unnecessary 'slurm_cmd_args' handling in 'local' backendIn the
'local'backend block,slurm_cmd_argsis being checked and deleted fromresource_dict. Since SLURM command-line arguments are not applicable to the local backend, this may be unnecessary.Please verify if handling
slurm_cmd_argsin the local backend is required. If not, removing these references would simplify the code and reduce potential confusion.
Line range hint
207-291: Refactor to eliminate duplicated code in backend handlingThe logic within the
create_executorfunction for handling different backends contains duplicated code, particularly in setting upresource_dictand creating executor instances.Consider refactoring the common code into helper functions or abstractions to reduce duplication. This will improve maintainability and make future updates easier.
For example, you could create a function to handle common setup tasks:
def setup_executor( max_cores, max_workers, cores_per_worker, resource_dict, block_allocation, init_function, spawner, set_local_cores=False, ): if block_allocation: resource_dict["init_function"] = init_function return InteractiveExecutor( max_workers=validate_number_of_cores( max_cores=max_cores, max_workers=max_workers, cores_per_worker=cores_per_worker, set_local_cores=set_local_cores, ), executor_kwargs=resource_dict, spawner=spawner, ) else: return InteractiveStepExecutor( max_cores=max_cores, max_workers=max_workers, executor_kwargs=resource_dict, spawner=spawner, )Then, replace the backend-specific executor creation with calls to this function.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
executorlib/__init__.py(2 hunks)executorlib/cache/executor.py(2 hunks)executorlib/interactive/executor.py(4 hunks)notebooks/examples.ipynb(8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
notebooks/examples.ipynb (7)
72-72: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the basic example.
106-106: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the multiple function submission example.
162-162: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the map function example.
280-280: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the simplified resource definition example.
335-335: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the data handling example.
465-466: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the MPI parallel example.
522-522: LGTM: Backend name updated correctly
The backend parameter has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the GPU example.
executorlib/interactive/executor.py (1)
201-202: Confirm overwriting of 'backend' when 'flux_executor' is provided
The code sets backend = "flux_allocation" when flux_executor is not None and backend is not already "flux_allocation". This may override the user's specified backend unintentionally.
Ensure that overwriting the backend in this case is intentional and does not lead to unexpected behavior for users who specify a different backend along with a flux_executor.
| @@ -113,6 +113,6 @@ def create_file_executor( | |||
| cache_directory=cache_directory, | |||
| resource_dict=resource_dict, | |||
| pysqa_config_directory=pysqa_config_directory, | |||
| backend=backend.split("pysqa_")[-1], | |||
| backend=backend.split("_submission")[0], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add validation for backend name format
The current implementation assumes all backend names will contain "_submission" without validation. This could lead to unexpected behavior if an invalid backend name is provided.
Consider adding validation and proper error handling:
- backend=backend.split("_submission")[0],
+ backend=backend.split("_submission")[0] if "_submission" in backend else
+ raise ValueError(f"Invalid backend format: {backend}. Expected format: <backend>_submission")This ensures that:
- The backend name follows the expected format
- Invalid formats are caught early with a clear error message
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| def create_file_executor( | |||
| max_workers: int = 1, | |||
| backend: str = "pysqa_flux", | |||
| backend: str = "flux_submission", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Update test and error messages for backend naming convention change
The verification reveals several issues that need to be addressed:
- The test file
tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.pystill uses the oldpysqa_fluxbackend name - Multiple error messages across the codebase reference "pysqa based backend" which is outdated
- The codebase shows a clear transition to the new
*_submissionnaming convention
Required changes:
- Rename
tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.pyto match the new naming convention and update its content - Update error messages in:
executorlib/cache/executor.pyexecutorlib/cache/shared.pyexecutorlib/standalone/inputcheck.pyexecutorlib/__init__.py
🔗 Analysis chain
Breaking change: Verify impact of backend name change
The default backend value has changed from "pysqa_flux" to "flux_submission", which could break existing code. Additionally, the error messages still reference "pysqa based backend" which is inconsistent with the new naming convention.
Let's verify the impact and consistency:
Consider:
- Adding a deprecation warning for the old backend name
- Updating error messages to remove "pysqa based backend" references
- Updating documentation to reflect the new naming convention
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for direct usage of the old backend name
rg "pysqa_flux"
# Check for references to pysqa in error messages and comments
rg -l "pysqa.*backend"
# Check for consistency in backend naming across the codebase
rg "_submission[\"']|\.[\"']submission"
Length of output: 517
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the test file to understand the test context
cat tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.py
# Check the actual error messages containing pysqa references
rg -A 2 "pysqa.*backend" executorlib/cache/executor.py
rg -A 2 "pysqa.*backend" executorlib/cache/shared.py
rg -A 2 "pysqa.*backend" executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py
rg -A 2 "pysqa.*backend" executorlib/__init__.py
# Check if there are any other backend types being used
rg "backend\s*=\s*[\"'][^\"']*[\"']"
Length of output: 6194
| @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ def __new__( | |||
| resource_dict.update( | |||
| {k: v for k, v in default_resource_dict.items() if k not in resource_dict} | |||
| ) | |||
| if "pysqa_" in backend and not plot_dependency_graph: | |||
| if "_submission" in backend and not plot_dependency_graph: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
Backend naming convention changes are partially implemented
The codebase shows an inconsistent state of backend naming conventions:
- New
_submissionand_allocationsuffixes are used in the core implementation - However, there are still multiple references to the old
pysqa_prefix, particularly in:- Core functionality:
executorlib/cache/queue_spawner.py(_pysqa_execute_command) - Configuration handling:
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py(check_pysqa_config_directory) - Multiple parameter references in docstrings and type hints across the codebase
- Core functionality:
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify backend naming convention changes across the codebase
The change from checking "pysqa_" to "_submission" in the backend string represents a significant change in naming conventions. Let's verify this change is consistently applied across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining instances of old backend naming and verify new naming convention usage
# Check for any remaining "pysqa_" backend references
echo "Checking for old 'pysqa_' backend references:"
rg "pysqa_" --type py
# Check usage of new "_submission" backend naming
echo -e "\nChecking new '_submission' backend usage:"
rg "_submission" --type py
# Check usage of new "_allocation" backend naming
echo -e "\nChecking new '_allocation' backend usage:"
rg "_allocation" --type py
Length of output: 9620
| "The `backend=\"slurm_allocation\"` parameter is optional as `executorlib` automatically recognizes if [flux framework](https://flux-framework.org)\n", | ||
| "or SLURM are available. \n", | ||
| "\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix documentation inconsistency with backend name
The documentation mentions backend="slurm_allocation" but all previous examples use backend="flux_allocation". This inconsistency could confuse users.
Apply this diff to fix the inconsistency:
-The `backend="slurm_allocation"` parameter is optional as `executorlib` automatically recognizes if [flux framework](https://flux-framework.org)
+The `backend="flux_allocation"` parameter is optional as `executorlib` automatically recognizes if [flux framework](https://flux-framework.org)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "The `backend=\"slurm_allocation\"` parameter is optional as `executorlib` automatically recognizes if [flux framework](https://flux-framework.org)\n", | |
| "or SLURM are available. \n", | |
| "\n", | |
| "The `backend=\"flux_allocation\"` parameter is optional as `executorlib` automatically recognizes if [flux framework](https://flux-framework.org)\n", | |
| "or SLURM are available. \n", | |
| "\n", |
| else: | ||
| raise ValueError( | ||
| "The supported backends are slurm_allocation, slurm_submission, flux_allocation, flux_submission and local." | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unsupported backends mentioned in error message
The error message lists 'slurm_submission' and 'flux_submission' as supported backends, but there is no handling for these backends in the code above. This could lead to confusion if a user specifies one of these backends.
Either implement handling for 'slurm_submission' and 'flux_submission' backends or update the error message to reflect the actual supported backends. This will ensure users receive accurate information.
Apply this diff to update the error message:
raise ValueError(
- "The supported backends are slurm_allocation, slurm_submission, flux_allocation, flux_submission and local."
+ "The supported backends are slurm_allocation, flux_allocation, and local."
)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| else: | |
| raise ValueError( | |
| "The supported backends are slurm_allocation, slurm_submission, flux_allocation, flux_submission and local." | |
| ) | |
| else: | |
| raise ValueError( | |
| "The supported backends are slurm_allocation, flux_allocation, and local." | |
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.py (1)
36-36: Backend name change looks good, but consider updating the test class name.The backend name change from "pysqa_flux" to "flux_submission" aligns with the PR objectives. However, the test class name
TestCacheExecutorPysqastill contains "Pysqa" which might be confusing given the new naming convention.Consider renaming the test class to better reflect the new backend naming:
-class TestCacheExecutorPysqa(unittest.TestCase): +class TestCacheExecutorFlux(unittest.TestCase):tests/test_executor_backend_flux.py (2)
109-110: Consider additional memory handling test casesWhile the backend name change is consistent, consider adding test cases for:
- Memory handling with multiple concurrent tasks
- Memory cleanup scenarios
- Error cases in memory initialization
Would you like me to propose additional test cases to improve coverage?
Line range hint
1-115: Update docstrings to reflect new backend namesConsider adding docstrings to the test class and methods to document:
- The purpose of the "flux_allocation" backend
- Expected behavior differences from the old "flux" backend
- Requirements and prerequisites for running these tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
executorlib/__init__.py(1 hunks)tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.py(1 hunks)tests/test_executor_backend_flux.py(5 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- executorlib/init.py
🔇 Additional comments (5)
tests/test_cache_executor_pysqa_flux.py (1)
Line range hint 36-40: Verify backend name consistency across the codebase.
Let's ensure this backend name change is consistently applied across all relevant files.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can generate the final response:
Backend name 'flux_submission' is consistently used, but there are multiple flux-related backend variations that seem legitimate
The codebase shows consistent usage of different flux-related backend names that appear to serve distinct purposes:
flux_submission: Used in cache executor contextsflux_allocation: Used in interactive executor contextsflux: Used in standalone input checking and benchmarks
These variations seem intentional based on their usage patterns in different components:
- Cache executor:
flux_submission(default inexecutorlib/cache/executor.py) - Interactive executor:
flux_allocation(used inexecutorlib/interactive/executor.py) - Input checking:
flux(validated inexecutorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py)
No instances of the old pysqa_flux backend name were found, confirming the migration is complete.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the old backend name and verify new backend name usage
echo "Checking for old backend name 'pysqa_flux'..."
rg "pysqa_flux"
echo -e "\nChecking usage of new backend name 'flux_submission'..."
rg "flux_submission"
echo -e "\nChecking for potential backend name definitions or mappings..."
rg -g "*.py" "backend.*=.*['\"]flux"
Length of output: 1978
tests/test_executor_backend_flux.py (4)
65-66: LGTM! Changes are consistent
The backend name change is consistent with the previous test method, and the threading test logic remains intact.
93-95: LGTM! Map operation test remains valid
The backend name change is consistent, and the test coverage for map operations with MPI tasks remains appropriate.
80-82: Verify PMI mode configuration with new backend
The backend name change is consistent, and the PMI mode configuration is preserved. Let's verify the PMI mode handling in the new backend implementation.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for PMI mode handling in the new backend
ast-grep --pattern 'flux_executor_pmi_mode'50-51: Verify backend name consistency across codebase
The backend name change from "flux" to "flux_allocation" appears correct, but let's ensure this new name is consistently used across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Backend name change is consistent and correct
The change from "flux" to "flux_allocation" in the test file is verified to be correct. The codebase shows:
- The backend name "flux_allocation" is properly defined in the
create_executorfunction - The backend supports both allocation and submission modes, with "flux_allocation" being one of the valid options
- The test changes align with the implementation in
executorlib/interactive/executor.py
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining old "flux" backend references
rg '"flux"' --type python | grep -v "flux_allocation" | grep -v "flux_submission"
# Search for the new backend name usage
rg '"flux_allocation"' --type python
Length of output: 1730
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for backend name references with better context
rg -A 2 -B 2 'backend\s*=\s*["\']flux' --type python
# Search for the new backend name with context
rg -A 2 -B 2 'backend\s*=\s*["\']flux_allocation' --type python
# Search for backend-related configuration or constants
rg -A 2 -B 2 'BACKEND.*flux' --type python --ignore-case
Length of output: 93
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for backend-related code with simpler patterns
rg -l "backend.*flux" --type python
# Look for executor backend implementations
fd -e py | xargs grep -l "class.*Flux.*Backend"
# Search for backend registration or configuration
rg "backend.*=.*flux" --type python
Length of output: 223
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Examine the test file content to understand the backend implementation
cat tests/test_executor_backend_flux.py
# Look for any backend registration or configuration files
fd -t f -e py | xargs grep -l "flux"
Length of output: 3742
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation files for backend registration
cat executorlib/interactive/flux.py
# Check the executor initialization
cat executorlib/interactive/executor.py
Length of output: 17212
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (1)
120-122: Update error message to reflect new backend name.While the backend name has been updated from "flux" to "flux_allocation", the error message still refers to "flux". This could be confusing for users.
Apply this diff to maintain consistency:
if backend != "flux_allocation" and pmi is not None: - raise ValueError("The pmi parameter is currently only implemented for flux.") + raise ValueError("The pmi parameter is currently only implemented for flux_allocation.")
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py(1 hunks)notebooks/examples.ipynb(11 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- notebooks/examples.ipynb
🔇 Additional comments (1)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (1)
122-125: LGTM: PMI validation logic is robust.
The validation logic for PMI values is well-implemented, with clear error messages listing the supported values.
| if backend != "flux_allocation" and pmi is not None: | ||
| raise ValueError("The pmi parameter is currently only implemented for flux.") | ||
| elif backend == "flux" and pmi not in ["pmix", "pmi1", "pmi2", None]: | ||
| elif backend == "flux_allocation" and pmi not in ["pmix", "pmi1", "pmi2", None]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Backend name inconsistency detected - update required
Several files still use the old "flux" backend name instead of "flux_allocation":
executorlib/__init__.py: Documentation and code references "flux" in backend optionsexecutorlib/interactive/executor.py: Documentation lists "flux" as a backend optiontests/test_shared_input_check.py: Uses "flux" in test casestests/test_cache_executor_serial.py: Uses "flux" in test executiontests/benchmark/llh.py: Uses "flux" for backend configuration
These instances need to be updated to use "flux_allocation" for consistency with the new implementation.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify consistent usage of new backend name.
Let's ensure the new backend name "flux_allocation" is used consistently across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining instances of the old "flux" backend name
# and verify consistent usage of "flux_allocation"
echo "Checking for old 'flux' backend references..."
rg --type python '"flux"' -C 2 | grep -v "flux_allocation" | grep -v "flux_submission"
echo "Verifying usage of new 'flux_allocation' backend..."
rg --type python '"flux_allocation"' -C 2
Length of output: 416
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try without specifying file type since Python extension isn't recognized
echo "Checking for old 'flux' backend references..."
rg '"flux"' -C 2 | grep -v "flux_allocation" | grep -v "flux_submission"
echo -e "\nVerifying usage of new 'flux_allocation' backend..."
rg '"flux_allocation"' -C 2
Length of output: 7580
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
tests/test_dependencies_executor.py (1)
76-78: LGTM! Consider adding more test cases.The test correctly verifies error handling for invalid backend names. However, to ensure comprehensive coverage, consider adding test cases for:
- Other invalid backend names
- Empty string backend name
- None as backend name
Example addition:
def test_create_executor_error(self): with self.assertRaises(ValueError): create_executor(backend="toast", resource_dict={"cores": 1}) + with self.assertRaises(ValueError): + create_executor(backend="", resource_dict={"cores": 1}) + with self.assertRaises(ValueError): + create_executor(backend=None, resource_dict={"cores": 1})
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
tests/test_dependencies_executor.py(1 hunks)tests/test_shared_input_check.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/test_shared_input_check.py (1)
69-69: LGTM! Backend name update is consistent with PR objectives.
The change from "flux" to "flux_allocation" aligns with the PR's goal of updating backend names.
tests/test_dependencies_executor.py (1)
76-78: Verify test coverage for all valid backend names.
Let's ensure that positive test cases exist for all supported backend names.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response as we have found all the valid backend types and their test coverage.
Test coverage for backend names is comprehensive
The error test case for invalid backend "toast" is appropriate, and the codebase shows thorough testing of all valid backends:
- "local" - tested in multiple test files with both blocked and non-blocked allocation
- "flux_allocation" - covered in flux-specific test files with PMI mode variations
- "flux_submission" - tested in cache executor tests
- "slurm_allocation" - validated in input checks
The negative test case complements the extensive positive test coverage across the test suite.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all valid backend names in the codebase
echo "Searching for backend name definitions..."
rg -l "backend.*=.*['\"].*['\"]" --type py
# Find existing test cases for backends
echo "Searching for backend-related test cases..."
rg -l "test.*backend" --type py tests/
Length of output: 688
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the backend definitions and test cases more precisely
echo "Searching for backend definitions..."
rg "backend.*=.*['\"].*['\"]" --type py -A 2
echo "\nSearching for backend-related test cases..."
rg "def test.*backend" --type py tests/ -B 1 -A 1
echo "\nSearching for create_executor test cases..."
rg "create_executor\(.*backend.*\)" tests/ -B 1 -A 1
Length of output: 10214
| @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ def test_check_pmi(self): | |||
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |||
| check_pmi(backend="test", pmi="test") | |||
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |||
| check_pmi(backend="flux", pmi="test") | |||
| check_pmi(backend="flux_allocation", pmi="test") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Backend name "flux" still exists in some test files and needs to be updated
Found inconsistent backend naming that needs attention:
tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py: Usesbackend="flux"tests/benchmark/llh.py: Usesbackend="flux"
These files should be updated to use backend="flux_allocation" for consistency with the changes in other test files.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify consistent backend name updates across the codebase.
Let's ensure the backend name change from "flux" to "flux_allocation" is consistently applied.
Let me try another search strategy without relying on file type detection.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining instances of the old "flux" backend name
# and verify the new "flux_allocation" name is used consistently
# Search for any remaining standalone "flux" backend references
echo "Checking for old 'flux' backend references:"
rg --type python 'backend="flux"' || rg --type python "backend='flux'"
# Search for the new "flux_allocation" backend references to confirm consistent usage
echo -e "\nVerifying new 'flux_allocation' backend usage:"
rg --type python 'backend="flux_allocation"' || rg --type python "backend='flux_allocation'"
# Search for any flux-related configuration or backend definitions
echo -e "\nChecking backend definitions and configurations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'backend = "flux"' || ast-grep --pattern "backend = 'flux'"
Length of output: 672
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining standalone "flux" backend references
echo "Checking for old 'flux' backend references:"
rg 'backend="flux"' || rg "backend='flux'"
# Search for the new "flux_allocation" backend references
echo -e "\nVerifying new 'flux_allocation' backend usage:"
rg 'backend="flux_allocation"' || rg "backend='flux_allocation'"
# Search for flux-related imports or configurations
echo -e "\nChecking flux-related imports and configurations:"
rg -A 2 'from.*flux' || rg -A 2 'import.*flux'
Length of output: 2478
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Documentation
Bug Fixes
These updates streamline the execution process and improve user experience when configuring backend options.