Skip to content

Conversation

dkfellows
Copy link
Collaborator

If we have no guidance for what to look for, assume we want just one core. If more is needed, the user will need to specify, but they'd probably need to do that anyway; this is a best guess when told nothing!

I think this fixes #801

If we have no guidance for what to look for, assume we want just one core.

If more is needed, the user will need to specify, but they'd probably need to do that anyway; this is a best guess when told nothing!
@dkfellows dkfellows requested a review from a team as a code owner May 12, 2025 15:43
@dkfellows dkfellows added bug Something isn't working SLURM Related to the SLURM scheduler integration labels May 12, 2025
@dkfellows dkfellows self-assigned this May 12, 2025
@gcapes
Copy link
Collaborator

gcapes commented May 27, 2025

I'm not sure that it's the whole story - see #801 (comment)

@dkfellows
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, now I understand what was wrong.

When testing if a number of nodes/cores is matched, a None for the requested value means "I do not care" any anything on the partition description side should be acceptable.

@dkfellows
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The unit test added checks that, provided the partition configuration descriptors are right, we'll pick something sensible for a partition. It's not smart but it at least isn't floored by a task that doesn't ask for any resources any more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working SLURM Related to the SLURM scheduler integration
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

SLURM partition not detected from config
3 participants