Open ltalirz opened 5 years ago
@sphuber do you agree?
would it make sense to use the "process label" as the default label of the ProcessNode
?
Do you mean to set the node label
automatically equal to the process_label
attribute? If so, I don't think that makes much sense. If there is confusion in the naming, then we should maybe simply rename the process_label
attribute. This was added as a shortcut when we were in the process transition period. We needed a field that contained a human readable label of what "class" the node represented. It then often is just the class name of the Process
that created it, or the function name in case of process functions. We could rename it to process_name
or process_class
maybe? But this will require a data migration of course.
Thanks for the clarification.
Given the purpose of the process_label
, I agree that it would probably best be renamed.
I would vote for process_class
.
I suggest we transfer this issue to aiida-core (link on the right). To me this issue is not high priority and could be marked for 2.0.
Only downside of process_class
is that it might be confusing for process functions, where it won't contain a class name but the function name. However, this might be fine and there may be no better alternative, I don't know
This still persists. Looking at the help string for the -P
option of verdi process list
, there are a number of fields that I would consider not self-explanatory to a new user:
-P, --project [pk|uuid|ctime|mtime|state|process_state|process_status|exit_status|sealed|process_label|label|description|node_type|paused|process_type|job_state|scheduler_state|exception]
process_label
vs label
node_type
vs process_type
state
vs process_state
vs process_status
job_state
vs scheduler_state
We may not be able to resolve all of these ambiguities, but let's keep them in mind for when we make changes in the future.
one person found this confusing