Project

General

Profile

action #64667

START_DIRECTLY_AFTER_TEST - Child cancellation cancels other childs

Added by ggardet_arm about 1 year ago. Updated about 1 year ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
-
Category:
Feature requests
Target version:
Start date:
2020-03-20
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Difficulty:

Description

problem / current behavior

In a context of START_DIRECTLY_AFTER_TEST, if a child is cancelled, then other childs are skipped.
Example:

  • B and C have START_DIRECTLY_AFTER_TEST=A

    ---> B
    /
    A
    \
    ---> C

  • A ran successfully, B is running and C is waiting that B is done to start.

  • If I cancel B, then C will not be run and is skipped.

expected behavior

As B and C are independents/siblings, cancelling B should start C.

History

#1 Updated by mkittler about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Target version set to future

In the chat you've been talking about priorities as well. So what you've observed has nothing to do with job priorities after all?

But I get the problem. That's indeed something I haven't really put thought into when implementing START_DIRECTLY_AFTER_TEST. I suppose what you're asking for is actually just a tiny adjustment in the worker code. Only testing will be annoying and likely only be possible manually.

I was so free to amend the description so I later still know what the current behavior is and what the desired behavior is.

#2 Updated by ggardet_arm about 1 year ago

mkittler wrote:

In the chat you've been talking about priorities as well. So what you've observed has nothing to do with job priorities after all?

Job priority inside START_DIRECTLY_AFTER_TEST is a separate problem. Except if you want to fix as part of this ticket?

#3 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago

  • Category set to Feature requests

I guess different people can have different expectations, e.g. "if any child is cancelled in a cluster, invalidate the whole cluster", i.e. cancel other siblings as well. What's the use case behind cancelling B but keeping C?

#4 Updated by ggardet_arm about 1 year ago

okurz wrote:

What's the use case behind cancelling B but keeping C?

B can be known broken, but we still want to test C which is a complete different test. The only commonality between B and C is they requires A to be run before.

#5 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to Low

Also available in: Atom PDF