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

fastcache should not cache lookup on node skip #4524

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 6, 2023

Conversation

hamersaw
Copy link
Contributor

@hamersaw hamersaw commented Dec 4, 2023

Tracking issue

fixes #4384

Why are the changes needed?

Currently there will be a cache lookup failure when nodes are skipped. This is because the node inputs cannot be resolved, caused by an upstream node in the failed phase for example.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

If a node is in the predicatePhase skip after the preexecute function this means that the node should be evaluated. We now predicate the fastcache cache lookup on not being in the skip phase, meaning the cache lookup will not be performed.

How was this patch tested?

Tested using the

Setup process

NA

Screenshots

NA

Check all the applicable boxes

  • I updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

NA

Docs link

NA

@dosubot dosubot bot added the size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Dec 4, 2023
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 4, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (94d79f5) 58.90% compared to head (e0450a1) 58.90%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4524   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   58.90%   58.90%           
=======================================
  Files         620      620           
  Lines       52458    52458           
=======================================
+ Hits        30900    30901    +1     
+ Misses      19091    19090    -1     
  Partials     2467     2467           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 58.90% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dosubot dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Dec 4, 2023
@hamersaw hamersaw merged commit 040a05f into master Dec 6, 2023
40 of 41 checks passed
@hamersaw hamersaw deleted the bug/cache-lookups-on-node-skip branch December 6, 2023 16:36
pvditt pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[BUG] FAIL_AFTER_EXECUTABLE_NODES_COMPLETE tries to execute nodes which should never start when using dynamic
2 participants