-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Pipeline Node should not need to be connected to every task #57
Comments
I believe there is a misunderstanding of what is a Pipeline vs a Scenario. In Taipy 3.0 it should be simpler. Basically, a pipeline is a subset of tasks that can be executed together independently from the other scenario tasks. The proposal "the pipeline should only be connected to the first Task Node" does not make sense in this context. Still the issue is interesting cause it shows that it is not intuitive. Probably both the Pipeline concept itself and Studio config are not intuitive regarding the usage of Pipeline. What do you think ? |
I agree. Removing the Pipeline Box and Scenario Box would make things more straightforward and more intuitive |
Shall we close this @AlexandreSajus @jrobinAV ? |
I don't know. |
Not the scenario
I suppose pipeline will go when we support 3.0?
…On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 12:07 Jean-Robin ***@***.***> wrote:
I don't know.
A question has been raised. Do we want to remove the Pipeline box and the
Scenario Box? Does it make sense for everyone?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#57 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVQBA5CP6FLFFERHVIVGLKLXQ6WUXANCNFSM6AAAAAAYOLDD6Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
In my mind, removing both of these would significantly improve accessibility which is the main bottleneck of Core currently. |
@FredLL-Avaiga Yes, removing the pipeline would be part of 3.0 anyway. In 3.0 ScenarioConfig will directly hold TaskConfigs and some additional data node configs unrelated to any taskConfig. If we keep the Scenario Box, that means it will be linked to all the task boxes and all the additional data node boxes. I guess it will degrade the accessibility a lot. |
If we use the link representation, yes. |
Yes, both task configs and data node configs may be used by multiple Scenario configs... Maybe the Scenario config can be displayed as a "title" of the graph displayed. I don't know. |
My first instinct was to create rectangles around scenarios like in the documentation but it has its limits. Or we could represent scenarios with different colors. Maybe the global view should be not the main view and the user should be "forced/guided" to go to the scenario view (the default option). |
Up: |
This issue is not relevant anymore |
It is still relevant because you have to connect your scenario config to the tasks, right? |
Yeah, now the issue would be: either remove the scenario node (one toml file per scenario configuration) or do not make me connect the scenario node to each task |
The scenario node is not visible in the Scenario Perspective and every Task that is added to the perspective is added to the scenario |
Ah, I did not know that we did not have to connect tasks to the scenario node. Then it is fine. Maybe we should remove the scenario node then; what is its point? |
I also think so! When creating a configuration we could ask for a scenario name directly and not propose to view the whole configuration by default. Also, when I add data nodes to my page, it goes to additional_datanodes which is correct but they should disappear from this section if I attach them to a task. Is it an issue? I don't think this leads to any error however. |
task / additional_datanodes @jrobinAV do you confirm this is an issue ? |
Description
We must connect the Pipeline Node to every Task Node we want to execute.
This was misleading during beta testing: testers would forget to connect new tasks, and since the error logs don't explain much, they could not find what was wrong.
A tester expected that the pipeline should only be connected to the first Task Node, every Task Node connected indirectly to this first Task Node should also be executed like here:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: