jupyterlab-lsp VS argo

I've recently seen JupyterLab LSP that bring the static analysis aspect of LSP to the notebook, and been wondering if there is anything similar that try to bridge a running kernel back into Neovim.

JupyterLab is optimised for handling R, Python and Julia. Code intelligence-wise it requires installing jupyterlab-lsp to get all the best features.

Pylance is really a great LSP in VS Code and it's pretty fast, and Jupyter Lab has an LSP that is also great depending on your use case. VS Code has remote host support for Docker, VMs, etc. depending on what your plans are.

Like Argo Workflows?

https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows

Dagger looks more comparable to Argo Workflows: https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ That's the first of the Argo projects, which can run multi-step workflows within containers on Kubernetes.

For what it's worth, my colleagues and I have had great luck with Argo Workflows and wrote up a blog post about some of its advantages a few years ago: https://www.interline.io/blog/scaling-openstreetmap-data-wor...

Despite other alternatives like Circle CI, Travis CI, GitLab CI or even self-hosted options using open-source projects like Tekton or Argo Workflow, the reason for choosing GitHub Actions was straightforward: GitHub Actions, in conjunction with the GitHub ecosystem, offers a user-friendly experience and access to a rich software marketplace.

author seems to be describing the kind of patterns you might make with https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ . or see for example https://github.com/couler-proj/couler , which is an sdk for describing tasks that may be submitted to different workflow engines on the backend.

it's a little confusing to me that the author seems to object to "pipelines" and then equate them with messaging-queues. for me at least, "pipeline" vs "workflow-engine" vs "scheduler" are all basically synonyms in this context. those things may or may not be implemented with a message-queue for persistence, but the persistence layer itself is usually below the level of abstraction that $current_problem is really concerned with. like the author says, eventually you have to track state/timestamps/logs, but you get that from the beginning if you start with a workflow engine.

i agree with author that message-queues should not be a knee-jerk response to most problems because the LoE for edge-cases/observability/monitoring is huge. (maybe reach for a queue only if you may actually overwhelm whatever the "scheduler" can handle.) but don't build the scheduler from scratch either.. use argowf, kubeflow, or a more opinionated framework like airflow, mlflow, databricks, aws lamda or step-functions. all/any of these should have config or api that's robust enough to express rate-limit/retry stuff. almost any of these choices has better observability out-of-the-box than you can easily get from a queue. but most importantly.. they provide idioms for handling failure that data-science folks and junior devs can work with. the right way to structure code is just much more clear and things like structuring messages/events, subclassing workers, repeating/retrying tasks, is just harder to mess up.

Argo Workflows + Argo Events

Drone, or Tekton, Argo Workflows if you’re on k8s

Check out Argo Workflows.

go-git has a lot of bugs and is not actively maintained. The bug even affects Argo Workflow, which caused our data pipeline to fail unexpectedly (reference: https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/issues/10091)