Integration: #143 (inc. #141, #139), #130, #86, #90 #144
Conversation
Conflicts: batchspawner/batchspawner.py
- Uses JupyterHub 0.9 feature, no effect for <0.9. - Closes: jupyterhub#81
- Needed in cases where path to the wrapper may need explicit specification.
- importing batchspawner.api could become depreciated in the future, but importing "batchspawner" will always work (and imports .api within it). Recommend only importing batchspawner then. - Add clarifying comment in one of the docs.
|
Ok @rkdarst - I see the tests have been passing for a while now on this integration branch, and it's accumulated a pretty good number of changes. Do we know if a human has actually tried using this branch to confirm end-to-end functionality? In the interest of moving things forward, I'd like to start merging from these integration branches rather than potentially duplicating your efforts by merging individual PRs. |
|
I generally test these on my dev setup as I'm working on them. In this branch's case, I tested yesterday and was just about to make it live. I guess there will be news on that in the next day or two. |
|
I've made this live on my cluster, and it is working as expected. |
|
Great to hear it! In the absence of others chiming in, I think that's good enough for me. Merging. |
This is an integration branch made to test if the most important other
PRs work together, while waiting for others to go in. However it can
be seen as a line of development, too.
All of these PRs do work together, it seems, with only minor fixups.
This could use testing on other clusters.
run_commandsubstantially) #90: refactor to use Python 3.5 asyncioCloses: #143, #141, #139, #133, #130, #90, #86 (PRs)
Closes: #131, #126 (Issues) at least.