Subject: Re: [drmaa-wg] DRMAA TEST SUITE
From: Peter Tröger <[email-masked]>
To: "Ruben Santiago Montero" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DRMAA Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:00:06 -0500

>> Our proposal is to remove the call of drmaa_wifaborted() for
>> ST_INPUT_FILE_FAILURE / ST_ERROR_FILE_FAILURE / ST_OUTPUT_FILE_FAILURE.
>> The drmaa_wait() call does not hurt (since all submitted jobs must be
>> waitable), but the crucial part is the testing for the result of
>> drmaa_synchronize(). After this change, I would expect the test cases to
>> be successful also on your system. In case of malicious input / output /
>> error files, the DRMAA implementation would only be expected to state a
>> job failure. This should work for all GridWay-supported systems, right ?
>> Could you accept this proposal ?
>>
> Sure. It make sense for me also.
> 
> There is also a validator in the state diagram (Section 2.6). I am just 
> wondering if a DRMAA implementation could just reject the jobs in these
tests 
> at submission with a DRMAA_ERRNO_DENIED_BY_DRM.

The spec is unclear here, since the description of the input / ouput / 
error parameters demands a particular job state - DRMAA_PS_FAILED. You 
can only have a job state when you have a job id. YOu can only have a 
job id when drmaa_run() was successfull. I really would like to have the 
opportunity of DRMAA_ERRNO_DENIED_BY_DRM also in this case, but then we 
have to relax the description of the according job template attributes.

Sounds like another issue for the next phone call. Hrabri ?

Regards,
Peter.