Skip to content
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

Distinguish the disk and remote caches in the action progress status. #20935

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

tjgq
Copy link
Contributor

@tjgq tjgq commented Jan 18, 2024

Previously, they were both displayed as remote-cache; there's now a separate disk-cache form. If a combined cache is used, one or both forms will appear, depending on which caches were looked up.

As a result, the progress status reporting is moved to the individual cache implementations. While this is kind of unfortunate from an architectural standpoint, it's likely the best we can do until we recast cache lookups as spawn strategies (see #19904).

@tjgq tjgq force-pushed the cache-name branch 2 times, most recently from cbc5f49 to 2388856 Compare January 18, 2024 18:49
@tjgq tjgq changed the title Distinguish the remote, disk and combined caches in the UI state tracker. Distinguish the disk, remote and combined caches in the UI. Jan 18, 2024
@@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ public DiskAndRemoteCacheClient(DiskCacheClient diskCache, RemoteCacheClient rem
this.remoteCache = Preconditions.checkNotNull(remoteCache);
}

@Override
public String getDisplayName() {
return "combined-cache";
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For combined cache, I would like it to first report disk-cache and then remote-cache if missed disk cache. Maybe we should move the event emission into the cache client?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

PTAL. (The architecture isn't great, but I don't see any better options.)

@tjgq tjgq marked this pull request as ready for review January 19, 2024 17:14
@tjgq tjgq requested a review from a team as a code owner January 19, 2024 17:14
@github-actions github-actions bot added team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Jan 19, 2024
@tjgq tjgq changed the title Distinguish the disk, remote and combined caches in the UI. Distinguish the disk and remote caches in the action progress status. Jan 19, 2024
@coeuvre coeuvre added awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally and removed awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Jan 22, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally label Jan 26, 2024
@fmeum
Copy link
Collaborator

fmeum commented Jan 26, 2024

@bazel-io flag

@bazel-io bazel-io added the potential release blocker Flagged by community members using "@bazel-io flag". Should be added to a release blocker milestone label Jan 26, 2024
@keertk
Copy link
Member

keertk commented Jan 26, 2024

@bazel-io fork 7.1.0

@bazel-io bazel-io removed the potential release blocker Flagged by community members using "@bazel-io flag". Should be added to a release blocker milestone label Jan 26, 2024
bazel-io pushed a commit to bazel-io/bazel that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2024
Previously, they were both displayed as `remote-cache`; there's now a separate `disk-cache` form. If a combined cache is used, one or both forms will appear, depending on which caches were looked up.

As a result, the progress status reporting is moved to the individual cache implementations. While this is kind of unfortunate from an architectural standpoint, it's likely the best we can do until we recast cache lookups as spawn strategies (see bazelbuild#19904).

Closes bazelbuild#20935.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 601748051
Change-Id: I03710219973c95d4fca999d931b3513f6d240d94
tjgq added a commit to tjgq/bazel that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2024
Previously, they were both displayed as `remote-cache`; there's now a separate `disk-cache` form. If a combined cache is used, one or both forms will appear, depending on which caches were looked up.

As a result, the progress status reporting is moved to the individual cache implementations. While this is kind of unfortunate from an architectural standpoint, it's likely the best we can do until we recast cache lookups as spawn strategies (see bazelbuild#19904).

Closes bazelbuild#20935.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 601748051
Change-Id: I03710219973c95d4fca999d931b3513f6d240d94
tjgq added a commit to tjgq/bazel that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2024
… status.

Previously, they were both displayed as `remote-cache`; there's now a separate `disk-cache` form. If a combined cache is used, one or both forms will appear, depending on which caches were looked up.

As a result, the progress status reporting is moved to the individual cache implementations. While this is kind of unfortunate from an architectural standpoint, it's likely the best we can do until we recast cache lookups as spawn strategies (see bazelbuild#19904).

Closes bazelbuild#20935.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 601748051
Change-Id: I03710219973c95d4fca999d931b3513f6d240d94
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2024
… status. (#21084)

Previously, they were both displayed as `remote-cache`; there's now a
separate `disk-cache` form. If a combined cache is used, one or both
forms will appear, depending on which caches were looked up.

As a result, the progress status reporting is moved to the individual
cache implementations. While this is kind of unfortunate from an
architectural standpoint, it's likely the best we can do until we recast
cache lookups as spawn strategies (see #19904).

Closes #20935.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 601748051
Change-Id: I03710219973c95d4fca999d931b3513f6d240d94
@tjgq tjgq deleted the cache-name branch March 7, 2024 10:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants