Good point, `shutdown` probably isn't needed anymore. Though I haven't
looked at the code so I'm not 100% sure.

Max

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]>
wrote:

> @Maxime, is SHUTDOWN needed anymore, then?
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Maxime Beauchemin <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's a new feature in master where tasks instances call the mothership
> > (the database) at each heartbeat to see if they are still running. If
> they
> > aren't they essentially commit suicide.
> >
> > That means that in theory you could have an failure hook that would set
> the
> > running siblings as failed and they should terminate.
> >
> > Max
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Paul,
> > >
> > > I don't have a solution to this, but I have a suggestion on where you
> > might
> > > look. There's a state that results in a blue square in the tree view.
> > This
> > > happens when a running task has its state cleared. It's apparently a
> > > 'poison pill' that should cause the task to kill itself. I don't recall
> > the
> > > name of the state off the top of my head. I *think* it's the SHUTDOWN
> > > state. Might trace through that code and see if you can figure it out.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Ryabchuk, Pavlo <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Can someone suggest how can I stop execution/mark(failed or any other
> > > > status) of all sibling tasks (also can be passed as a list) if one of
> > > them
> > > > failed?
> > > > It's just useless for me to process other tasks if one failed,
> because
> > in
> > > > my case  it's for sure issue with my processing soft and it will lead
> > to
> > > > fixing and recompilation of it, and in any case reprocessing all
> tasks
> > > with
> > > > newer version.
> > > > I've tried various manipulations with TaskInstances and Jobs states
> on
> > > > on_failure_callback but nothing seem to work.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to