@natefoo Wrong target branch?

Yep thanks.

This looks good as a fix for 18.09, but I was wondering if stop_job() in BaseJobRunner and subclasses should actually receive a JobWrapper object as parameter instead of a Job object.
This should simplify this code and put the stop_job() method in line with the rest of the BaseJobRunner methods.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. In fact, all the ones receiving both the Job and JobWrapper should probably just receive JobWrapper. I think in the past the idea was that things that didn't need a JobWrapper should just get a Job since it would be quicker not to create a JobWrapper when it was unneeded.

In fact, all the ones receiving both the Job and JobWrapper should probably just receive JobWrapper. I think in the past the idea was that things that didn't need a JobWrapper should just get a Job since it would be quicker not to create a JobWrapper when it was unneeded.

Perhaps it was a premature optimization - but I've sometimes passed a job parameter directly to something that had access to a job_wrapper to prevent the SA interactions in get_job.