[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-355?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13910598#comment-13910598
]
Josh Wills commented on CRUNCH-355:
-----------------------------------
Yeah, this has been one of those things that I screwed up in such a way that it
bothers me, but never enough to actually fix it. ;-)
Maybe it's about that time; I think the ideal here would acknowledge separate
dependency chains for each of the stages in a pipeline run, so that if you had
two different pipelines running simultaneously, they wouldn't both be labeled
"job 1 of 3" and "job 1 of 4" (assuming one had three stages and one had four),
but that there would be some sort of distinction for them. Or does that seem
unnecessary?
> Rename jobs to show how many stages have done before job submission
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CRUNCH-355
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-355
> Project: Crunch
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Chao Shi
> Assignee: Josh Wills
>
> The naming mechanism introduced in CRUNCH-262 has a flaw. It adds (m/n) to
> the end of job name, where m is the current stage number at planning time and
> n is the total number of stages.
> Suppose in the following case, where A takes a long time to run, when B is
> submitted, C and D have completed. As there are 3 jobs done, we should expect
> B to be (4/5) rather than (2/5) or (3/5).
> {code}
> A C
> | |
> B D
> \ /
> E
> {/code}
> In planning time, we don't have a clue which stage will complete earlier. So
> I think it better to assign it at runtime.
> One problem here is that the user may access to Job instance before it
> submits. So he may observe a sudden change of job name.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
