Analysis schema for historic job data

[ChrisPaulBennett]

Linked to cylc/cylc-ui#1510 and cylc/cylc-ui#1466

This is a branch for querying historic job data. You can give it a list of task names to limit which jobs are returned, otherwise it will default to all jobs.

This is a quick work in progress branch that I have used for development of UI views to visualise job timing data and wants tidying up before it is ready to go on master."

I have taken ownership of this issue (Previously #511)

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).
• Tests are included (or explain why tests are not needed).
• No changelog entry needed (UI PRs are the user-facing ones)
• Nod docs PR needed
• If this is a bug fix, PR should be raised against the relevant ?.?.x branch.

[ChrisPaulBennett]

I have refactored some code and added some extra tests.
Not sure why the MacOS (Why does this exist?) tests are failing. It's in a set of tests that I haven't touched.
Any input on this would be appreciated.

[MetRonnie]

MacOS tests failures unrelated - actions/runner-images#8649

[MetRonnie]

@oliver-sanders I think this needs to be on 1.4.x right?

[oliver-sanders]

Changed the milestone to 1.5.0

[MetRonnie]

This is not going to be available for Jupyter Server 2 users? Never mind, I got confused

[oliver-sanders]

LGTM

[MetRonnie]

I've just force-pushed to simplify the commit history. No changes made.

If any more changes are needed on this branch, please reset your local branch to this latest commit and then add commits on top of it (rather than merging this into your local branch, which will undo the commit history simplification)

[MetRonnie]

I've just force-pushed to simplify the commit history. No changes made.

If any more changes are needed on this branch, please reset your local branch to this latest commit and then add commits on top of it (rather than merging this into your local branch, which will undo the commit history simplification)

I've done this again, please follow these instructions if you want to add any more commits

[ChrisPaulBennett]

All points have been resolved. The lack of test coverage is due to the function list_elements being troublesome to test.
This function access's a SQL DB that exists in a workflow directory. I'm currently looking for a way to point it at a test data directory.
If you currently have a method, that would be appreciated

[MetRonnie]

I'm not so concerned by the lack of coverage on list_elements(). But maybe get_elements() could do with testing. You could use Pytest's monkeypatch fixture to replace list_elements with a mock in order to test the expected output of get_elements without running any DB queries

[MetRonnie]

Got some suggestions at ChrisPaulBennett#5

[ChrisPaulBennett]

You said that you were not concerned about list_elements().
Are you happy with this pull request now?

[oliver-sanders]

LGTM, suggest keeping this open whilst the UI PR is worked on in case changes are required.

[oliver-sanders]

Upstream PR is in, getting the tests passing before merging this one.