policy: refactor options to allow custom #1268

wihobbs · 2024-08-13T01:05:28Z

Problem: the current fluxion policy matching factory doesn't allow for customizable policies.

Add a custom option and refactor existing policies to behave similarly. Add unit testing for the string parsing convenience functions.

Outstanding to-do:

add an option in the scheduler config to actually pass a custom string in, and probably some validation too

wihobbs · 2024-08-13T01:07:43Z

And I know the testing and the code should be in separate commits... sigh (will fix)

cmoussa1

Thanks for opening this @wihobbs! I have just some preliminary questions/comments on a first pass. Apologies in advance that I'm not very familiar with the sched code at all so I could definitely be misunderstanding how this works. :-)

resource/policies/dfu_match_policy_factory.cpp

cmoussa1 · 2024-08-13T15:36:48Z

resource/policies/dfu_match_policy_factory.cpp

-    resource_type_t node_rt ("node");
+std::shared_ptr<dfu_match_cb_t> create_match_cb (const std::string &policy_requested)
+{
+    std::string policy = policies.find (policy_requested)->second;


Should this .find () call have any sort of error checking after the lookup of policy_requested? Maybe this is always guaranteed to find something successfully. If not, maybe you can check the contents of policy before moving on.

if (policy == "") // return an error? // set matcher to something default? // sorry that idk what the right behavior should be here

Mmm good catch. It should call known_match_policy first to see if the policy exists.

Oh, actually, known_match_policy is called when the config is validated in resource/modules/resource_match_opts.cpp so it's already been validated before it gets here.

This will need additional work to support custom.

In that case, a comment making note that it is already validated by the time it gets to that lookup might be helpful here!

cmoussa1 · 2024-08-13T15:38:40Z

resource/policies/dfu_match_policy_factory.cpp

+
+            if (option_exists ("stop_on_k_matches", policy)) {
+                ptr->set_stop_on_k_matches (parse_int_match_options ("stop_on_k_matches", policy));
+            }


Does this if-else branch need an else statement? Excuse my ignorance on this - I'm not sure if the addition of custom policies allows for something other than low or high

AFAIK low and high are the only options, unless locality or variation are chosen.

resource/policies/base/test/matcher_policy_factory_test02.cpp

jameshcorbett

Just did a quick look-through, it looks reasonable to me. I think the commits could be broken up better though (as you noted already)

trws · 2024-08-19T20:01:55Z

resource/policies/dfu_match_policy_factory.hpp

 bool known_match_policy (const std::string &policy);

+const std::map<std::string, std::string> policies =


I'll do a deeper look over this, but first thing this should be split. Put the declaration here with extern and the definition in the cpp file so this variable doesn't end up getting defined in all includers.

To be fair, that's what the old code did, but it shouldn't 😬

garlick · 2024-08-20T15:40:05Z

PR title seems truncated?

wihobbs · 2024-08-20T17:18:53Z

Well, custom is a new type of policy that this PR is enabling. Or will enable eventually. Maybe "resource: refactor policy options to allow a user-defined policy" is more descriptive?

Note that this is still WIP and needs some config work and testing for the custom options. Happy to incorporate any feedback on the initial draft (and thanks to those who have already reviewed!), but it's going to stay in draft state until the code can:

accept a custom string with policy options
reject certain strings that are requesting invalid custom options, such as set_stop_on_k_matches=-100 and such
test some custom options and make sure they behave as expected
break out the commit history in a better way

wihobbs · 2024-09-05T04:02:31Z

Per discussion with Tom:

To handle custom policies, "don't validate, parse" -- parse the input on a delimiter first and then verify that each key is valid, give an error message if it isn't, possibly demote this to a warning based on a config option
Fluxion should issue a fatal warning if a policy named is not valid -- don't fall back on first (might already be done?)
set_stop_on_k_matches probably only takes a value of 1, however, we should test this
we should also think about having "node_centric" have a score factor of 10000, maybe we don't want to allow users to configure this, but maybe that number doesn't cover all our bases

Problem: the current fluxion policy matching factory doesn't allow for customizable policies. Add a custom option and refactor existing policies to behave similarly. Add unit testing for the string parsing convenience functions.

Problem: the expansion of fluxion's dfu_match_policy_factory to include custom policies opens the door for more creative policy options, but doesn't test them. Add a shell test, starting from a previous test of node-exclusivity but substituting the short policy keys (i.e. "hinodex") for longer, "custom" policy strings.

codecov · 2024-12-23T19:04:05Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 62.1%. Comparing base (3fb0b4e) to head (3484d1c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #1268      +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    75.2%   62.1%   -13.2%     
=========================================
  Files         111      51      -60     
  Lines       15986    6191    -9795     
=========================================
- Hits        12029    3845    -8184     
+ Misses       3957    2346    -1611

see 84 files with indirect coverage changes

wihobbs requested review from jameshcorbett and cmoussa1 August 13, 2024 01:06

wihobbs force-pushed the new-policy-refactor branch from f7f1df3 to cd87d59 Compare August 13, 2024 01:09

cmoussa1 reviewed Aug 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

wihobbs force-pushed the new-policy-refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 5f03ae3 to ba80f7b Compare August 13, 2024 16:31

jameshcorbett reviewed Aug 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

trws reviewed Aug 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

wihobbs force-pushed the new-policy-refactor branch from ba80f7b to 2d176c4 Compare November 15, 2024 17:25

wihobbs force-pushed the new-policy-refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 9304412 to 147eebf Compare December 23, 2024 17:48

wihobbs added 2 commits December 23, 2024 10:07

policy: refactor options to allow custom

98ba331

Problem: the current fluxion policy matching factory doesn't allow for customizable policies. Add a custom option and refactor existing policies to behave similarly. Add unit testing for the string parsing convenience functions.

wihobbs force-pushed the new-policy-refactor branch from 147eebf to 3484d1c Compare December 23, 2024 18:07

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

policy: refactor options to allow custom #1268

policy: refactor options to allow custom #1268

wihobbs commented Aug 13, 2024

wihobbs commented Aug 13, 2024

cmoussa1 left a comment

cmoussa1 Aug 13, 2024

wihobbs Aug 13, 2024

wihobbs Aug 13, 2024

cmoussa1 Aug 13, 2024

cmoussa1 Aug 13, 2024

wihobbs Aug 13, 2024

jameshcorbett left a comment

trws Aug 19, 2024

trws Aug 19, 2024

garlick commented Aug 20, 2024

wihobbs commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

wihobbs commented Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024

		bool known_match_policy (const std::string &policy);

		const std::map<std::string, std::string> policies =

policy: refactor options to allow custom #1268

Are you sure you want to change the base?

policy: refactor options to allow custom #1268

Conversation

wihobbs commented Aug 13, 2024

wihobbs commented Aug 13, 2024

cmoussa1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jameshcorbett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

garlick commented Aug 20, 2024

wihobbs commented Aug 20, 2024 • edited Loading

wihobbs commented Sep 5, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Codecov Report

wihobbs commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

wihobbs commented Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading