Arvados

• All agreed upon points are implemented / addressed. Describe changes from pre-implementation design.
  • Workbench now handles runtime_constraints and InstanceType structs containing a generic "GPU" section instead of the platform specific "CUDA" section
• Anything not implemented (discovered or discussed during work) has a follow-up story.
  • n/a
• Code is tested and passing, both automated and manual, what manual testing was done is described.
  • Passes automated tests. Manually created container records and inspected the rendering to make sure there were no issues.
• New or changed UX/UX and has gotten feedback from stakeholders.
  • 
  • It is a relatively minor change. I suppose we could run this by the group, otherwise the reviewer can make the call.
• Documentation has been updated.
  • n/a
• Behaves appropriately at the intended scale (describe intended scale).
  • No change in scale
• Considered backwards and forwards compatibility issues between client and server.
  • Records that only contain "CUDA" will no longer show up, but because requests with "CUDA" are translated on the API server side, that would only happen if newer Workbench was talking to an older API server. Currently we only support newer workbench talking to older API server in very limited federation cases. This kind of thing could be bigger issue in the future, but I don't think it is an issue now.
• Follows our coding standards and GUI style guidelines.
  • Yes

In the course of testing, I also fixed a few issues in arvados-cwl-runner around default values and ensuring that expressions are evaluated in CUDARequirement and ROCmRequirement.