Atomic improvements and null driver executable - #973
Merged
maddenp-cu merged 17 commits intoSep 1, 2026
Merged
Conversation
maddenp-cu
commented
Aug 31, 2026
maddenp-cu
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 1, 2026 14:48
maddenp-cu
requested review from
christinaholtNOAA and
elcarpenterNOAA
as code owners
September 1, 2026 14:48
maddenp-cu
commented
Sep 1, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Synopsis
nullas a value forexecutablein driver configs, to support all-Python drivers.atomiccontext manager a way to avoid creating the final file at all.In re: item 1, there are reasons for requiring a
nullvalue instead of just omitting the key:<driver>.execution.executable,executableis the only required key in theexecution:block, so making it optional would make the wholeexecution:block potentially also optional. We could consider that, but:nullvalue signals intent, while a missingexecutablekey (or a missingexecution:block) looks potentially like an omission.nullvalue might be useful in the future to signal that certain behavior is unwanted. Currently, theuwtoolsmechanism for this is the!removetag, but this must potentially be repeated many times in an override config if the same optional value (e.g.accountunder many task subblocks in a Rocoto block) should be suppressed. Compare to a case where one might setuser.accountto a real account name in a base config and have manyaccount: '{{ user.account }}'references to it in Rocoto blocks. In this case, an override config would only need to override the singleuser.accountvalue, setting it tonull. Of course, supporting Python code would need to take appropriate action when seeing anullvalue in supported contexts -- as is done in this PR forexecutable: null. So allowingexecutable: nullhere is a proof-of-concept exercise (as well as potentially improving a real use case inuw-aigfs, but that's a separate PR).Type
Impact
Checklist