Got it. In your case, blocking node plays a role of test. This is another way to use blocking node. The main idea of blocking node is checking conditions every time to ensure the workflow correct. As the saying goes, every coin has two sides. You can set the blocking node 'Prohibition execution' to solve it, just like ‘-Dmaven.test.skip=true' option in Apache Maven when packaging a java project. Maybe we will have better solution in the future~
Yours sincerely~ =================== Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish Martin Huang [email protected] Sent with a Spark =================== 在 2021年7月9日 +0800 PM4:16，simsicon <[email protected]>，写道： > Just a simple example, if one just modified a node script, they want to > make sure the modification is as expected, so they change the DAG, add a > new blocking node to it, and detect if the modification is correct. They > would remove the blocking node after a while when DAG runs OK. > > In this case, the users must add and remove an extra blocking node to the > DAG rather than just add a blocking statement to the modified node which > will not change the DAG dependencies. > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 11:44 AM 黄智远 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Would you mind describing your doubt more clearly or giving more details? > > When a workflow blocked, that must be something wrong (maybe the code > > written in the node) in the upstream to trigger blocking requirements. > > > > Yours sincerely~ > > > > =================== > > Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish > > Martin Huang > > [email protected] > > Sent with a Spark <https://sparkmailapp.com/> > > =================== > > 在 2021年7月9日 +0800 AM10:34，simsicon <[email protected]>，写道： > > > > Thanks for the elaborated explanation, I agree the solution 2 is more > > flexible, more like a plugin mechanism, and solves my pre/post blocking > > script expectation. > > > > What I said about the modification to the DAG when one just wants to block > > the workflow temporarily, that still remains the doubt to me, but I guess > > if we have to get a conclusion to this solution, it's relatively harmless. > > > > Looking forward to seeing the release of this feature! > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 11:10 PM 黄智远 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > First of all, I express my deep gratitude to @simsicon, @dailidong, > > @Jave-Chen and @shaojwu. Thank you for your interest in this feature and > > your advice! > > > > So for, the feedback received is more in favor of Solution I (modified > > based on existing nodes), but **I think Solution II (adding new node type) > > would be more suitable for DS**. I will discuss why I think the second > > solution is more suitable from the following two aspects. > > > > - Functionality (From basic functions and long-term plans) > > - Cost (From users and developers) > > > > ## Functionality > > > > ### Basic Functions > > > > In order to choose a solution properly, in my opinion, the baseline is > > reaching the basic functions. The goal of blocking task is that in the > > execution process in a workflow, **if encountered blocking task and the > > task met blocking requirements, the whole workflow should have been paused, > > otherwise, continued.** > > > > Obviously, **two of solutions will reach that goal.** In addition, in some > > sicuation, solution II will be better than solution I. Let me show you. > > > > Suppose your boss have a demond. There is a blocking task in workflow. > > > > And there are three independent sub_processes in front of the blocking > > task. Now, your boss tells you that if any two of the three sub_processes > > run successfully, the workflow continue, or else, pause. > > > > If I choose solution I, I will use condition node. In the current version > > of condition node, I must have two branches, one for success, one for > > failure, and two branch must be different. For completing the blocking > > task, **I must have a useless branch** (echo helloword in shell for example > > ) to meet my boss requirement. Maybe you will consider to modify current > > condition node, but I think it is not suitable. Because you **break the > > condition node function** which is used to turn the workflow into the user > > expected direction. > > > > If I choose solution II, everything becomes easy. As for this new type of > > node (Let me call it blocking node), we do not have limitations. This node > > has logic judgement function and it can support one successor branch or > > multi-successors branchs. In this way, **it does not destroy the > > functionality of existing nodes and accomplishes our blocking goal.** > > > > ### Long-term plans > > > > In solution I, blocking task is **used as a special node attribute**. If > > one day, Apache releases a new bigdata component and DS wants to support > > it, we still need to add the blocking option when coding related web pages. > > But in solution II, put things right once and for all. > > > > ## Cost > > > > ### User > > > > To be honest, the user cost is similar in both solutions. User will know > > what blocking task is and how to setup. @simsicon says that solution II > > will cause the modification of DAG. Actually, neithor solution I or > > solution II needs to modify the DAG, but the degree is different. > > > > ### Developer > > > > Coding in solution II maybe harder. But I believe that is worthy. Beacuse > > solution II is more flexiable and competent than solution I, just like I > > menthoned in the above sicuation. For another instance, Apple releases > > iPad Air 4 and iPad Pro 2021. iPad Air 4 (256GB) sales 749 dollars and iPad > > Pro (128GB, 11 inch) sales 749 dollars. They differ by $50. But with that > > extra money you can enjoy the ultimate iPad experience while meeting your > > daily needs, why not pay that extra price? Blocking task is the same. > > > > In conclution, I think solution II is better. > > > > Welcome to express your opinion! > > > > =================== > > Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish > > Martin Huang > > [email protected] > > Sent with a Spark > > =================== > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks&Best Regards > > > > Zhang Zheng > > > > > > -- > > Thanks&Best Regards > > Zhang Zheng >
