feat(derived data): Allow experimental Pipelines in DebugGroupDerivedDataEndpoint - #122808
Draft
kcons wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
feat(derived data): Allow experimental Pipelines in DebugGroupDerivedDataEndpoint#122808kcons wants to merge 1 commit into
kcons wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rolling out new Features or modified features can be expensive; we need to reprocess the world before we can see them in action.
Unit test coverage is expected for key scenarios, but it's useful to be able to specify non-live Pipelines for processing in non-live contexts to see their impact on known problem groups.
This extends our debug endpoint to allow arbitrary PIpelines to added and requested for evaluation.
By itself, this isn't terribly high impact, but it can be useful for spot-checking fixes against real data, and it starts moving us away from a world of single pipeline assumption. We can apply a similar pattern of pipeline choice to background validation tasks, running them with a potential new pipeline, tagging metrics with the pipeline name, and using comparison of correctness over a significant project or set of groups to inform choices.
Note that in thise case, we're not replacing STATUS, just adding a peer. I plan to follow up to support a "use this new Feature wherever we use STATUS currently" approach which'll be much more interesting; the code was interesting enough to merit independent review.