-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 435
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 documentation for LFS caching, The Bridge and Save Atomic Files Workflow #2288
Add documentation for LFS caching, The Bridge and Save Atomic Files Workflow #2288
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2288 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 68.49% 68.49%
=======================================
Files 145 145
Lines 13245 13245
=======================================
Hits 9072 9072
Misses 4173 4173 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
*beep* *bop* Hi, human. The Click here to see your results. |
`this notebook <https://github.com/tardis-sn/tardis-refdata/blob/master/notebooks/ref_data_compare_from_paths.ipynb>`_. | ||
The workflow has a ``workflow_dispatch`` event so that it can be triggered manually, but is also | ||
triggered every week due to the "save-atomic-files" workflow. | ||
The bridge fails currently there is a discrepancy between |
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 don't think it's worth including this information since it requires us to keep it up to date.
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.
Should we then have a general statement about the purpose of the workflow? Or should I remove the entire added documentation for the bridge and the save-atomic-files workflow?
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.
No, the part you should remove is that "the bridge fails currently..." the documentation should just include the intended behaviour. Issues should list problems with that intended behaviour.
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 see!
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.
Please remove the bit about the failing bridge
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.
Why does the benchmark workflow fail here?
d1506fd
to
72dc3f7
Compare
@sonachitchyan It's just to see how the workflow runs. The benchmarks workflow has nothing to do with this pull request. I just wanted to try the workflow somewhere so I ran it here. |
Rebase and we can just merge this. |
72dc3f7
to
f49107c
Compare
*beep* *bop* All benchmarks: All benchmarks:
before after ratio
[b8f0af59] [26797d77]
731±4ms 715±0.2ms 0.98 benchmark_run_tardis.Benchmarkruntardis.time_run_tardis
|
📝 Description
🚦
testing
| 📝documentation
| 🎢infrastructure
📌 Resources
Examples, notebooks, and links to useful references.
🚦 Testing
How did you test these changes?
☑️ Checklist
build_docs
label