Conversation
gjoseph92
reviewed
Aug 24, 2022
Collaborator
gjoseph92
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I like this approach. Let's see what CI thinks.
gjoseph92
reviewed
Aug 24, 2022
Co-authored-by: Gabe Joseph <gjoseph92@gmail.com>
Contributor
Unit Test ResultsSee test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests. 15 files ±0 15 suites ±0 6h 30m 12s ⏱️ - 15m 43s For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 441380e. ± Comparison against base commit 599708e. |
gjoseph92
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2022
Collaborator
|
I think all the failures are flaky. That's still a ton of flaky tests though: |
This was referenced Aug 25, 2022
gjoseph92
pushed a commit
to gjoseph92/distributed
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2022
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR follows some online and offline discussions with @crusaderky and @gjoseph92 around the desired functionality of
_remove_from_processingand how we best setts.erred_onto the address of the worker that a task erred on without ambiguity.We make the following changes:
We generally want to avoid returning a stale worker (address) whenever suitable. Since
_remove_from_processingperforms the check already, we want to returnNonewhen the worker turns out to be stale. We further want to avoid sending around worker addresses since they're crappy IDs (#6392). Finally, we decided to require theworkerargument intransition_processing_erredto always be able to refer back to the original worker the task erred on.See #6939, https://github.com/dask/distributed/pull/6884/files#r952990650, and https://github.com/dask/distributed/pull/6884/files#r945761680 for more context.
pre-commit run --all-files