[bug] SLURM: Fix CPUs per task

[jan-janssen]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Adjusted the formatting for the CPU allocation parameter in SLURM job submissions to ensure it adheres to the expected syntax, improving job scheduling reliability.

• Tests

  • Added a new test for the SLURM command generation functionality to enhance test coverage.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the generate_slurm_command function in executorlib/interactive/slurm.py. The change updates the construction of the --cpus-per-task argument by including an equal sign before the value when threads_per_core is greater than 1, ensuring proper SLURM syntax. Additionally, a new test method is added in tests/test_pysqa_subprocess.py to validate the updated functionality. No alterations were made to public entity declarations.

Changes

File	Change Summary
executorlib/.../slurm.py	Updated the generate_slurm_command function to insert an equal sign in the --cpus-per-task argument, ensuring correct SLURM parameter format.
tests/.../test_pysqa_subprocess.py	Added test_generate_slurm_command method to TestPysqaExecuteCommand class to test the generate_slurm_command functionality.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Caller as Job Executor
    participant CmdGen as generate_slurm_command
    Caller->>CmdGen: Request command generation (threads_per_core > 1)
    CmdGen->>CmdGen: Concatenate "--cpus-per-task=" with the thread count
    CmdGen-->>Caller: Return updated command list

Loading

Poem

I'm a rabbit, hopping in the code field bright,
Fixing bugs with leaps of delight.
An equal sign now joins the fray,
Making SLURM commands go the right way.
With whiskers twitching in a rhythmic beat,
I celebrate changes that make our code complete!

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.89%. Comparing base (9f232ff) to head (1fe451d).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #569      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.73%   95.89%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        1149     1168      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits         1100     1120      +20     
+ Misses         49       48       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

tests/test_pysqa_subprocess.py (1)

48-59: Consider adding more test cases.

The test effectively validates the SLURM command generation with threads_per_core=2, confirming the correct formatting of --cpus-per-task=2. However, consider adding test cases for:

1. threads_per_core=1 to verify behavior when equal sign isn't needed
2. Edge cases like threads_per_core=0 or None
3. Use a more portable path instead of hardcoding "/tmp/test"

Here's a suggested implementation:

def test_generate_slurm_command_cases(self):
    test_cases = [
        {
            'input': {'cores': 1, 'cwd': '.', 'threads_per_core': 2},
            'expected': ['srun', '-n', '1', '-D', '.', '--cpus-per-task=2']
        },
        {
            'input': {'cores': 1, 'cwd': '.', 'threads_per_core': 1},
            'expected': ['srun', '-n', '1', '-D', '.', '--cpus-per-task', '1']
        },
        {
            'input': {'cores': 1, 'cwd': '.'},  # default case
            'expected': ['srun', '-n', '1', '-D', '.']
        }
    ]
    
    for case in test_cases:
        with self.subTest(threads_per_core=case['input'].get('threads_per_core')):
            command_lst = generate_slurm_command(**case['input'])
            self.assertEqual(command_lst, case['expected'])

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cbe50ab and 1fe451d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/test_pysqa_subprocess.py (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)

• GitHub Check: unittest_win
• GitHub Check: benchmark (ubuntu-latest, 3.13, .ci_support/environment-mpich.yml)
• GitHub Check: benchmark (ubuntu-latest, 3.13, .ci_support/environment-openmpi.yml)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

tests/test_pysqa_subprocess.py (1)

2-2: LGTM!

The import statement is correctly placed and specifically imports the function being tested.