-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
add support for reading .j2 config files with jinja #246
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should add jinja2
to the requirements.txt
file.
@andrerenard I've updated the requirements and marked this PR ready for review |
Is it worth trying to centralise the parsing of Jinja files into configs that kotekan will read? It would be nice to avoid the issue of having potentially divergent schemes for doing this parsing. This would require solving the issue that kotekan simply embeds its processing into |
Perhaps this is a worth a wider discussion on the call this week, but I'm hesitant move to a model which calls python first to parse things and then calls kotekan. It could be done, but it creates some potential issues around how logging and debuggers/GPU profilers work. In most production situations kotekan runs as a service and it really has no need for python, and there is no reason to run it through a wrapper. So I could see being in a world where we end up with different files to run in different modes. If we just want to make sure we are parsing the same way (not that we are doing anything fancy yet) we could just call the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Notwithstanding @jrs65's concerns about centralizing the parsing logic, this looks good to me. However, I think we should try to get the aioredis_v2
branch merged into main before we merge this, since the way the CI is configured we aren't running the new unit test here. And it would be nice to keep the aioredis
changes as a separate PR from this.
I would suggest doing this:
I think that can be made to conveniently work in all envisaged cases from a single implementation. However, we might want to pause on merging this PR until we've figured out what to do as in the case above the logic ends up exclusively in the kotekan python package. |
Agree. That we should merge the aioredis branch first. Currently it fails a bunch of the linting and doc building tests though. |
@jrs65 I really like that proposal, and I'll also vote we implement this as a python package in the kotekan repo. That also makes it easier and more consistent for projects that want to use something other than |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changing this to "changes needed", in response to @jrs65's proposal, which I think we should implement.
@jrs65 It looks like none of these linting errors on that PR are from my changes. Should I still address them all? |
@andrerenard @jrs65 I've adjusted this accordingly with the changes in kotekan. I set the requirements.txt file to install the version of kotekan on the |
664d376
to
0e54037
Compare
@andrerenard @jrs65 I thought this was merged earlier today, but was mistaken. Is there anything else needed for this to be merged? |
e7d522f
to
4e8c740
Compare
bc2071b
to
87be818
Compare
29df94b
to
ddf0fe7
Compare
Ael/config endpoint
No description provided.