Skip to content

graph: add --flatten-icp option - #7417

Open
oliver-sanders wants to merge 2 commits into
cylc:masterfrom
oliver-sanders:graph-flatten-icp-dependence
Open

graph: add --flatten-icp option#7417
oliver-sanders wants to merge 2 commits into
cylc:masterfrom
oliver-sanders:graph-flatten-icp-dependence

Conversation

@oliver-sanders

@oliver-sanders oliver-sanders commented Aug 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Add a cylc graph --flatten-icp option for "snipping" edges from R1 cycles for graph simplification.

This is the trivial idea mentioned in previous discussions around isolated startup graphs.

This preserves the ICP dependence (i.e, there's no information missing from the graph), it just duplicates the R1 dependent tasks into their respective cycles (but outside of the dotted cycle boxes which appear with the -c option) to flatten out these inter-cycles.


Without this option (present behaviour / default):

graph-expanded



With this option:

graph-flatten



The R1 label is completely optional, have done it this way for clarity, but could replace with the actual cycle point, or template, whatever. Just let me know what the preference is.

Check List

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md and added my name as a Code Contributor.
  • Contains logically grouped changes (else tidy your branch by rebase).
  • Does not contain off-topic changes (use other PRs for other changes).
  • Applied any dependency changes to both setup.cfg (and conda-environment.yml if present).
  • Tests are included (or explain why tests are not needed).
  • Changelog entry included if this is a change that can affect users
  • Cylc-Doc pull request opened if required at cylc/cylc-doc/pull/XXXX.
  • If this is a bug fix, PR should be raised against the relevant ?.?.x branch.

@oliver-sanders oliver-sanders self-assigned this Aug 11, 2026
@oliver-sanders oliver-sanders added this to the 8.7.0 milestone Aug 11, 2026
@oliver-sanders
oliver-sanders force-pushed the graph-flatten-icp-dependence branch from 6c3d601 to 739ce7c Compare August 11, 2026 12:42
@oliver-sanders
oliver-sanders marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2026 14:35
@hjoliver

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@hjoliver

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@oliver-sanders

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@hjoliver

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@hjoliver

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@oliver-sanders

oliver-sanders commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@hjoliver, I have closed the side PR for now.

Pending the outcome of other conversations, we can open this against cylc-flow@master as required, but this option is orthogonal to that one and will still standalone and provide benefit without it - so no need to couple the two and delay this one. I have cherry-picked your fix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants