Skip to content

Tighten up typing of addresses in HTEX#4087

Merged
benclifford merged 1 commit intoParsl:masterfrom
chris-janidlo:not-stringly-typed-addresses
Apr 15, 2026
Merged

Tighten up typing of addresses in HTEX#4087
benclifford merged 1 commit intoParsl:masterfrom
chris-janidlo:not-stringly-typed-addresses

Conversation

@chris-janidlo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

Cleans up a couple instances of "stringly-typed" variables in the HTEX internal code, which previously passed the list of candidate addresses as a comma-separated string. While that can't be avoided in between executor.py and process_worker_pool.py (since the latter is started up as a shell command), it can be avoided within the executor class and in the get_all_addresses function, freeing us of one call each of str.split and str.join.

Changed Behaviour

None

Type of change

  • Code maintenance/cleanup

Cleans up a couple instances of "stringly-typed" variables in the HTEX
internal code, which previously passed the list of candidate addresses
as a comma-separated string. While that can't be avoided in between
`executor.py` and `process_worker_pool.py` (since the latter is started
up as a shell command), it *can* be avoided within the executor class
and in the `get_all_addresses` function, freeing us of one call each of
`str.split` and `str.join`.

if self.address:
self.all_addresses = address
self.all_addresses = {self.address}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is this a behaviour change that means users could previous supply multiple addresses in the htex executor init field separated by "," and now they cannot?

(I don't think this is really a problem because it's documented as a single address and there isn't a strong usecase for a user to supply multiple addresses - just trying to get my head around expected changes)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, that would be a behavior change. I'm on the same page that this is an undocumented feature and should be safe to remove.

That said, should I add anything like a changelog entry or a dedicated test in this PR to handle that change more explicitly/robustly?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no need for further docs or tests for that, i think

@benclifford benclifford enabled auto-merge April 15, 2026 07:23
@benclifford benclifford added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 15, 2026
Merged via the queue into Parsl:master with commit 0dce186 Apr 15, 2026
10 checks passed
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