Add missing executor-based functional tests (see #1799 instead) #1798
Conversation
This file contains 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
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Andrew-S-Rosen
changed the title
Andrew-S-Rosen
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Note: This test suite is going to fail (as intended!) until #1781 is resolved. I wanted to make sure that tests get added though seeing how crucial this is.
The purpose of this PR is to add functional tests that would have caught the following issues, plus others related to it:
executorkwarg in@ct.latticedoes not pull the right configuration parameters #1733executorin@ct.lattice:DaskExecutorobject has no attributescheduler_address#1781The tests should likely be made a bit more precise by checking that the executor inheritance is passed down appropriately, but I wasn't sure what parameters to query. Happy to take suggestions on how to better address that!
Also, feel free to take this over and edit as you see fit. This is mostly just so the necessary tests make it into the suite one way or another. Doesn't matter to me how it happens.