Skip to content

Move the throughput_stress details out of the README - #441

Merged
lilydoar merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
lilydoar/stack/21
Aug 7, 2026
Merged

Move the throughput_stress details out of the README#441
lilydoar merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
lilydoar/stack/21

Conversation

@lilydoar

@lilydoar lilydoar commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Stacked PRs:


Move the throughput_stress details out of the README

Per-scenario detail was most of the README. The throughput_stress section moves
to docs/throughput-stress.md, leaving a pointer and an index entry; generic
option and run-flag behavior stays in docs/running.md, which the new page
references rather than restates.

Two errors in the moved text are corrected rather than carried over: the prose
named a sleep-activity option that does not exist (the declared one is
sleep-activity-json, which the adjacent example already used), and the manual
Nexus endpoint example targeted task queue "throughput_stress:default-run-id"
when task queues are "omes-", so it could not have worked as written.

@lilydoar
lilydoar marked this pull request as draft August 5, 2026 20:58
@lilydoar
lilydoar marked this pull request as ready for review August 5, 2026 20:58
@lilydoar
lilydoar enabled auto-merge (squash) August 6, 2026 17:20
Per-scenario detail was most of the README. The throughput_stress section moves
to docs/throughput-stress.md, leaving a pointer and an index entry; generic
option and run-flag behavior stays in docs/running.md, which the new page
references rather than restates.

Two errors in the moved text are corrected rather than carried over: the prose
named a sleep-activity option that does not exist (the declared one is
sleep-activity-json, which the adjacent example already used), and the manual
Nexus endpoint example targeted task queue "throughput_stress:default-run-id"
when task queues are "omes-<run-id>", so it could not have worked as written.

stack-info: PR: #441, branch: lilydoar/stack/21
@lilydoar
lilydoar marked this pull request as draft August 7, 2026 18:52
auto-merge was automatically disabled August 7, 2026 18:52

Pull request was converted to draft

@lilydoar
lilydoar force-pushed the lilydoar/stack/21 branch from 6114a91 to e928069 Compare August 7, 2026 18:52
@lilydoar
lilydoar marked this pull request as ready for review August 7, 2026 18:52
@lilydoar
lilydoar enabled auto-merge (squash) August 7, 2026 18:53
@lilydoar
lilydoar merged commit b3f462b into main Aug 7, 2026
86 of 87 checks passed
@lilydoar
lilydoar deleted the lilydoar/stack/21 branch August 7, 2026 19:28
lilydoar added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2026
Stacked PRs:
 * #444
 * #443
 * __->__#442
 * #441


--- --- ---

### Report a missed capability probe instead of reading false


Feature options are resolved by ResolveFeatureOptions, which only the
omes CLI
calls. Code driving a scenario as a library — VCR and oss-cicd build a
ScenarioInfo and call executor.Run directly — never resolves them, so
every
feature option reads false and the run omits the feature it was meant to
exercise, indistinguishable from a run that worked.

The OptionSet now tracks resolution, and reading an unresolved feature
reports
the option and the call that fixes it. An explicitly supplied value is
authoritative without a probe, so only an untouched option is reported,
and a
failed resolution leaves the set unresolved. OptionSet.Set records a
value as
deliberately chosen, which is what lets a library caller or a test set
an option
directly and have it treated like a user passing --option.

Also:

- ResolveFeatureOptions no longer panics on a nil logger, which library
callers
  are the ones to pass.
- A created Nexus endpoint is logged distinctly from a reused one, so an
operator
can see the run added something to the namespace. FuzzExecutor goes
through the
  same path instead of duplicating it.
- Declaring an option both required and capability-gated is rejected:
required
  means the user must supply it, gated means the namespace does.
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.

3 participants