Skip to content
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

feat(dependency): Adding dependency graph to start services #163

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

IanWoodard
Copy link
Member

@IanWoodard IanWoodard commented Nov 21, 2024

Currently, our logic does not handle bringing up services in the correct order such that dependencies are started before their dependents. This change addresses that by constructing a dependency graph and using reverse topological ordering to determine the ordering in which we should bring services up.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.11321% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.98%. Comparing base (dfe43f0) to head (c53a499).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
devservices/utils/dependencies.py 97.91% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #163      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.67%   90.98%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        1104     1154      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits         1001     1050      +49     
- Misses        103      104       +1     

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

Comment on lines +1892 to +1894
"grandparent-service": {
"description": "grandparent-service",
},
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see why we have this, but aren't we planning on moving away from this pattern and toward having different naming for self-referenced containerized versions of the service?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants