Fix for #895 #898
Fix for #895 #898
Conversation
|
@muhrin Please have a look at the change of manual_tick_all() and let us know what you think. |
aiida/daemon/tasks.py
Outdated
| @@ -139,5 +139,5 @@ def manual_tick_all(): | |||
| submit_jobs() | |||
| update_jobs() | |||
| retrieve_jobs() | |||
| execute_steps() # legacy workflows | |||
| workflow_stepper() # legacy workflows | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@giovannipizzi @muhrin
I had to use execute_steps() in my test because workflow_stepper() was exiting with a message that was already called. Maybe this was the reason why Martin used execute_steps() at this point. And it is the case, we should not change it to workflow_stepper()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, and I think I understand the problem. It's because in this new way we're calling the celery task.
Let's put it back to what it was for now. (better would be to have the task just call a function, and here call that function, with all the logic for setting the timestamps - both here and for the other functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this was the conclusion of the discussion that I had with Sebastiaan a few mins ago.
|
This can be merged. Look at my comment at #895 |
|
Are we sure already that the change in the |
This is a fix for #895.
It should be OK but we should also do some final checks by running @nmounet workflows again.
I will start them now & I will let you know (they will take several hours)