Arvados: Issueshttps://dev.arvados.org/https://dev.arvados.org/favicon.ico?15576888422024-03-27T16:15:58ZArvados
Redmine Arvados - Task #21633 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216332024-03-27T16:15:58ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21632 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216322024-03-27T16:11:16ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21631 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216312024-03-27T16:11:09ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21630 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216302024-03-27T16:10:40ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21629 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216292024-03-27T16:10:35ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21628 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216282024-03-27T16:10:04ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21627 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216272024-03-27T16:09:47ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21626 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216262024-03-27T16:08:43ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21625 (New): Review at engineering meetinghttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/216252024-03-27T16:08:13ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Task #21559 (New): Reviewhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/215592024-02-28T17:03:55ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Feature #21313 (New): Warn users when closing dialog and sharing input box isn't emptyhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/213132023-12-21T16:19:08ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.com
<p>To add a sharing link, the user needs to enter the name of the user being shared with, then click on a plus (+) button. Users sometimes forget to click the button.</p>
<p>When clicking "close" or otherwise trying to cancel the sharing dialog (e.g. the ESC key), it should check if the text entry is empty or not.</p>
<p>If the text entry is not empty, it should prevent the user from closing the dialog, show a warning that they have unsaved changes, and tell them they need to click on the (+) button to save.</p> Arvados - Feature #21297 (New): use container_status API to display scheduling feedback on cloudhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/212972023-12-13T22:15:48ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.comArvados - Feature #21272 (New): Support manipulation of collection subdirectories/streamshttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/212722023-12-07T17:02:50ZBrett Smithbrett.smith@curii.com
<p>I'm going to use the word "subdirectory" in this ticket, I care less what we call it in Workbench as long as we're consistent.</p>
<p>From the file listing on a collection page, I should be able to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Create a new subdirectory</li>
<li>Move selected subdirectories and files into/between other subdirectories</li>
<li>Move selected subdirectories and files into a chosen subdirectory of another collection</li>
</ul> Arvados - Idea #20693 (New): Design for server side coordination of multiple writers to a collectionhttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/206932023-06-28T18:57:06ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.com
<p>Background:</p>
<p>Multiple Arvados services (multiple instances of keep-web, arvados-client mount, arv-mount, etc) are trying to write files to the same collection at the same time.</p>
<p>Assume they are adding/removing/changing multiple files but not making changes that directly conflict/contradict one another.</p>
<p>Requirements:</p>
<ul>
<li>If a file is created or modified it won't disappear as a result of an update from another service that didn't know about that file</li>
<li>If there is a single writer, performance impact should be minimal</li>
<li>If there are multiple writers, it is acceptable that one of them may have to wait to avoid conflicts</li>
<li>Can use pessimistic locking to ensure only one client can have a write lock at a time, attempting to open a file for writing that is locked by another should return an error on open</li>
<li>Support WebDAV lock protocol</li>
</ul> Arvados - Feature #12430 (New): Crunch2 limit output collection to glob patternshttps://dev.arvados.org/issues/124302017-10-11T13:21:49ZPeter Amstutzpeter.amstutz@curii.com
<p>The current behavior for crunch-run is to upload all files in the output directory. This sometimes results in temporary files being uploaded that are not intended to be part of the output. Propose adding an "output_glob" field which is an array of filenames or glob patterns specifying which files and directories should be uploaded.</p>
<p>Specifically:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>output_glob</code> takes an array of strings.</li>
<li>If empty, fall back to default behavior (capture entire output).</li>
<li>Only basic Unix globs with <code>?</code> and <code>*</code> wildcards only.</li>
<li>The output only includes paths that match at least one pattern in <code>output_glob</code>.</li>
<li>Patterns match both files and directories.</li>
<li>Directory match means capture the directory and everything inside it.</li>
<li>Pattern can include slashes to capture items in subdirectories. This means parent directories in the path are included in output but should only contain pattern matched items</li>
<li>Items are captured in place, this feature does not include rearranging files.</li>
<li><code>output_glob</code> affects container reuse. output_glob must match for container reuse. Although, if we wanted to be clever, we could reuse containers where the output_glob pattern is a superset of the output_glob that we are asking for (maybe a simple version like empty <code>[]</code> for default behavior, or matches all <code>["*"]</code>).</li>
</ul>
<p>This feature should work for local output directory (by controlling which files are uploaded) and for the temporary collection directory (by controlling which files are propagated to the final collection). The output_glob should also apply when deciding whether to include items pre-populated in the output directory that are specified in 'mounts'.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure we don't support updating an existing collection in "mounts" so we don't have to worry about that. Crunch always creates a new collection as output. We should confirm/test for that.</p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<p>Directory listing:</p>
<p>foo<br />bar <br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["foo"]<br />Captures:<br />foo</p>
<p>output_glob: ["f*"]<br />Captures:<br />foo</p>
<p>output_glob: ["f*", "b*"]<br />Captures:<br />foo<br />bar<br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["ba?"]<br />Captures:<br />bar<br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["ba*"]<br />Captures:<br />bar<br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["baz"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["baz/*"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/quux<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["baz/parent1"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["baz/p*"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["baz/parent1/item1"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/parent1/item1</p>
<p>output_glob: ["quux"]<br />Captures:</p>
<p>output_glob: ["*/quux"]<br />Captures:<br />baz/quux</p>