Skip to content

Real-Time worker logs #60

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 2, 2025
Merged

Real-Time worker logs #60

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 2, 2025

Conversation

Hevagog
Copy link
Collaborator

@Hevagog Hevagog commented May 27, 2025

Live Logs Implementation

Description

Implementation of real-time worker logs

  • Type of Change:
    • New feature
    • Bug fix
    • Code refactoring
    • Documentation update
    • Other (please describe):

Related Issues

How Has This Been Tested?

  • Unit tests
  • Integration tests
  • Manual tests
  • Skip test - Please provide an explanation why you skip tests

We encourage you to keep the code coverage percentage at 90% and above.

  • Yes
  • No, and this is why: please replace this line with details on why tests
    have not been included
  • I need help with writing tests

Testing Environment:

  • Python Version: 3.10, 3.12
  • OS: Ubuntu 20.04

Checklist

Ensure that all the following tasks are completed before submitting your PR:

  • Code is formatted and has been linted using 'makefile' run-check option
  • New and existing tests pass locally.
  • All relevant documentation has been updated (e.g., docstrings, README, etc.).
  • Dependencies have been updated in pyproject.toml, and uv.lock has been regenerated accordingly.
  • This PR has been reviewed by at least one other developer.

@Hevagog Hevagog requested a review from dJaniga May 27, 2025 22:10
@Hevagog Hevagog changed the title live logs implementation Real-Time worker logs May 27, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@dJaniga dJaniga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Hevagog just one small rename request, then ready to go.


TAIL_LINES = 100
WORKER_PREFIX = "worker"
WORKER_PREFIX = "core-worker"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I do prefer simulation-worker

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To fix it I've figured that we also need to fix the naming so that it semantically fits (i.e. get rid of core and instead use simulation as the name of the compose so that the names of services are not: core-simulation-worker-n but simulation-worker-n)
image

@Hevagog Hevagog merged commit 2bf9e40 into main Jun 2, 2025
1 check passed
@Hevagog Hevagog deleted the live-logs branch June 2, 2025 21:40
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