[QC-450] Allow for output proxy channels which aren't "downstream"#4631
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
I was not aware of the behaviour, sorry. Yes it's fine for me. Do you think it's feasible to adapt the test so that it checks for such a topology? |
Collaborator
Author
|
Ideally I would like to have a test for multinode QC setups, but this is far from trivial to do. Maybe I could at least run parts of the big workflow one after another... In |
Contributor
|
@knopers8 Yes, it works with my multi-node setup as well. Thanks. |
tklemenz
pushed a commit
to tklemenz/AliceO2
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2020
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
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
@ktf #4426 broke multi-node setups in QC (which are used by ITS for commissioning now). We use different channels for different kinds of data, because sometimes we have to bind on the "pull" side, sometimes on the "push" side. Now the proxy throws if we use other channel name than "downstream". It is also not straightforward to adapt to that change, because on the receiver side
specifyExternalFairMQDeviceProxyforces us to use the same name for the device name and channel name, so essentially we can have only one input proxy with one channel.As a result, the whole FLP, EPN <-> QC servers communication would have one channel to use, so any QC server would receive all the data requested by all QC servers. Could we have something like this instead, so both the old and new behaviours work?
@JianLIUhep Could you please confirm this solves your issue? It works again on my setup.