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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: Update files with respect to common ReplicaSpec refactor #2424
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: Update files with respect to common ReplicaSpec refactor #2424
Changes from all commits
f3e742f
9100245
a972abb
cd6232a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Will the
replica
arg stay duplicated here?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.
What do you mean? To ensure backward-compatibility, both
replicas
andcommon.replicas
need to be sent to the backend.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.
In the respective backend plugin we already distinguish between
taskTemplate.TaskTypeVersion == 0/1
, see here. We'll have to add backwards compatibility for the refactoring in this PR there as well, right?I wonder whether removing the duplication in the proto definitions is worth having to check for backwards compatibility in flytekit and flyteplugins. While it might have been better to share the replica spec from the beginning, maybe it's now better to leave as is?
Happy to be convinced otherwise!! 🙏
@pingsutw fyi, let's maybe discuss in the contrib sync?
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.
@fg91 @pingsutw Have you finished the discussion in the contrib sync? What do you think in the end?
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.
@fg91 We have duplicated
replica
here to maintain backward compatibility. If people only upgrade flytekit and don't upgrade flyte backend, it should still work, right?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.
Did you test it? If it's duplicated, it should but let's definitely test it.
My personal opinion is that maybe we should have used a shared replica in the first place but duplicating the replica now feels more cluttered than leaving separate replicas.