-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
UDP: define minimally required additional job options #545
Comments
Quick note: Should probably be aligned with #471 |
about udf-dependency-archives: I think it even makes sense to attach this kind of info directly to the UDF, instead of indirectly associating it through the UDP that contains the UDF. This is kind of related to the idea being brainstormed at Open-EO/openeo-processes#374 to upgrade the current "just a string" Another path could be to use the
The current interpretation is that the context is passed directly as argument to the entrypoint function of the UDF, but in a more relaxed interpretation it could also serve to define extra runtime settings like The nice things about using |
@soxofaan indeed, but we still need to configure the other job options as well. |
+1 on adding the UDF options to the run_udf call. Adding job options to processes seems to mix concerns. The process could in principle also be executed in other modes, what happens then? What if I load the process into the Web Editor and change the extent to reasonable small or utterly large and execute it then? So my thinking is that adding such options to a process is not inline with the initial vision for openEO, especially when it's for CPU/mem consumption, which was always meant to be abstracted away. I think if job options are important and you want a job to be exeucted as a job, you need to actually schare the job metadata, not just the process, so pretty much a partial body for the POST /jobs request with Thinking about it a bit more now, could job options also be provided as process? For example:
Just a spontaneaous idea. Still somewhat mixing concerns, but doesn't need a spec change and is more visible to users. Thoughts? |
This feels a bit too procedural/stateful to me and as such conflicts with the openEO concept of expressing your workflow as a graph of linked processing nodes. How would these |
That's a good question and there's no obvious solution yet. Having unconnected nodes is probably a bit of a hassle... On the other hand, adding job metadata to the process is also not very clean as pointed out above. So maybe it's really sharing jobs (i.e. job metadata) instead of processes in this case? Similar things could appear for web services, where you'd also don't want to add the metadata for the service creation to the process, but instead probably share web service metadata. |
Some UDP's depend on very specific job options to run them successfully. For instance:
Here, udf-dependency-archives is really mandatory.
As for the other options, these can usually be considered as lower bounds. (I don't immediately know of a case where an upper bound would be relevant.)
Here's an example, where I called it 'minimal_job_options':
https://github.com/ESA-APEx/apex_algorithms/blob/dd81a53463e5c913e09329dc02832e8db5a6350e/openeo_udp/worldcereal_inference.json#L1416
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: