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

Initial Framework Setup #2

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 4, 2024
Merged

Initial Framework Setup #2

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 4, 2024

Conversation

Taepper
Copy link
Collaborator

@Taepper Taepper commented Sep 3, 2024

resolves #3

This is a first version for the framework we envisioned.

The general idea: The test runner automatically detects all testset folders and starts a corresponding

-> This makes the barrier to add new tests very low. Just copy paste an old directory or other data that is found and no need to adjust any config file

For every testset all queries are executed. I know that in #1 it was wished not to be defined in json, but this was closer to what we also did similar in SILO so I started with this and hoped we could iterate on it afterwards.

The queries must be able to define their result in external files, which is currently also the only version of specifying query results.

There are still some things that do not quite work well. The docker-compose file and thus the connection between SILO and LAPIS is sometimes broken and LAPIS throws some Java Exception when a request is received (related to GenSpectrum/LAPIS#934):

{
  "error": {
    "type": "about:blank",
    "title": "Internal Server Error",
    "status": 500,
    "detail": "Could not connect to silo: class java.net.ConnectException null"
  },
  "info": {
    "dataVersion": null,
    "requestId": "1685ba49-6832-40d7-b0e3-605ecfabee36",
    "requestInfo": "sars_cov-2_minimal_test_config on localhost at 2024-09-03T16:32:58.448522382",
    "reportTo": "Please report to https://github.com/GenSpectrum/LAPIS/issues in case you encounter any unexpected issues. Please include the request ID and the requestInfo in your report."
  }
}

@fengelniederhammer
Copy link
Contributor

resolves #1

Does it already resolve the whole issue? Or should we rather split it into smaller subtasks?

@Taepper
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Taepper commented Sep 4, 2024

No, I will change #1 to an epic and add issues that I can link to here

@Taepper Taepper merged commit 8ee2d62 into main Sep 4, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@corneliusroemer corneliusroemer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great work. A few comments:

@Taepper Taepper deleted the frameworkSetup branch September 4, 2024 20:42
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.

Initial Test Runner
3 participants