Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve test executor readability #62

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 11, 2024
Merged

Conversation

comane
Copy link
Member

@comane comane commented Mar 7, 2024

This PR does:

  • adds a return to the execute_parallel method in resource builder returning the client object (with close() method)

  • renames some of the toy functions used to generate a toy DAG with diamond structure.

  • adds some docstrings as well as remove some unused toy functions whose names were: n, o, p

Note: client.close is needed by test_executor and test_builder. Otherwise if test_builder is pytested runned before the test_executor, test_executor will be stuck because the client has not been closed appropriately

@comane comane requested a review from scarlehoff March 7, 2024 17:34
@comane comane requested a review from RoyStegeman March 7, 2024 18:07
Copy link
Member

@scarlehoff scarlehoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. I don't know enough RE to offer a more meaningful review though.

Copy link
Member

@RoyStegeman RoyStegeman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I have the same limitation as @scarlehoff. I suppose you're the master of reportengine now ;)

However, with the exception of the first point the changes are just cosmetic (and I agree it's clearer now), so this should be good to merge.

@comane comane merged commit 02acde3 into master Mar 11, 2024
1 check passed
@comane comane deleted the 240307_improve_test_executor branch March 11, 2024 18:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants