Closed fellhorn closed 2 weeks ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 86.11111%
with 5 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 60.98%. Comparing base (
59e18d1
) to head (d5754b6
). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
flytectl/cmd/compile/compile.go | 86.11% | 4 Missing and 1 partial :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
The docs generation in CI seems to be broken, I saw other Actions fail with the same error at the moment.
@fellhorn the docs CI test failure should be fixed by https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte/pull/5468 so if you rebase and merge it should do the trick
@fellhorn the docs CI test failure should be fixed by #5468 so if you rebase and merge it should do the trick
Rebased, thanks for the info :+1:
Why are the changes needed?
This workflow can be registered with
pyflyte register
and executed in a cluster. However,pyflyte --pkgs <module> package
+flytectl compile
gives the following error:What changes were proposed in this pull request?
The error occurs since flytectl compile does not consider all launchplans but only the default launchplan for the currently compiled workflow.
To do so, one needs to compile workflows in the correct order, which I do by recursively calling a new
handleWorkflow
function. Please point me to other places if there is already code handling this.As far as I have checked there are no recursion checks necessary as they would be caught during packaging?
How was this patch tested?
Added a unit test based on the example above. Additionally we tried the
flytectl compile
command on a number of our internal workflows.Note to reviewers: We couldn't find whether the source files for the
testdata/*.tgz
should be checked in as well - should they?Check all the applicable boxes
Related PRs
Replaces https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte/pull/5437