Skip to content

Conversation

ashao
Copy link
Member

@ashao ashao commented Jun 18, 2025

In some instances, the strong check that the executable can be found by the driver script when creating RunSettings is too restrictive. This can occur in cases where the binary does not exist on the node where the driver script is being launched (e.g. remote execution) or for binaries which need to be found after setting environment variables.

In some instances, the strong check that the executable can be
found by the driver script when creating RunSettings is too
restrictive. This can occur in cases where the binary does not
exist on the node where the driver script is being launched (e.g.
remote execution) or for binaries which need to be found after
setting environment variables.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 18, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.72%. Comparing base (d7d979e) to head (a5e53d0).
Report is 19 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #786      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    83.91%   81.72%   -2.19%     
===========================================
  Files           83       84       +1     
  Lines         6284     7011     +727     
===========================================
+ Hits          5273     5730     +457     
- Misses        1011     1281     +270     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
smartsim/settings/base.py 90.73% <100.00%> (-7.46%) ⬇️

... and 46 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Collaborator

@al-rigazzi al-rigazzi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you please add a test -- or even parameterize an existing one, so that we can check for correct behavior when skip_exe_check==True?
Because otherwise I agree that this is too restrictive and this can be merged pretty soon!

@al-rigazzi al-rigazzi removed the request for review from MattToast June 18, 2025 20:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants