Prefix flow name with username for uniqueness #374
Merged
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
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is one potential fix for a timing bug in the integration-tests. Occasionally the prefect-resource-manger test will fail because it registers the flow using the notebook then almost immediately queries for the flow's ID by name in a separate script. Since the flow's name is always the same sometimes the prefect API responds with the ID for the previous version instead of the newest one, and then creating a new flow run fails because that version has been archived (example)
The other notebooks in this example don't have this problem because they prefix flow names with the username, and in integration-tests the usernames contain UUIDs. So the flow is always unique.
Outside of the context of integration-tests, it seems sensible to have the same naming pattern across all of the flows created in this example.