5 ms·

I feel that "deterministic" is probably a better word here than "idempotent".

IshKebab 2y ago
To give a concrete example: some build systems embed a "build number" in the output that increments for each non-clean build (yeah this is stupid but I have seen it). This is deterministic (doesn't change randomly), but not idempotent.
craigching 2y ago
Maybe even hermetic builds? https://bazel.build/basics/hermeticity https://bazel.build/basics/hermeticity
appplication 2y ago
Not speaking to your comment specifically, but adding context to the thread: idempotence would mean having the same result, regardless of whether you run something once, twice, or 10 times, over the same input set. Idempotence requires but goes beyond determinism, as it also accounts for any externalities and side effects. For example, let’s consider a function that accepts a string as an argument and then writes that string to disk. We can consider the disk state as a side effect of the function. The function itself is perfectly deterministic (output string is a predictable and consistent function of input string), but depending on the implementation of side effects it may not be idempotent. If, for example, this function room simply added the output to a file “output.txt”, this file would grow with every incantation, which is not idempotent. If instead we overwrote the output file so that it reflects only the singular output of the previous run, then the side effects would also be deterministic, that would be idempotent. At a pedantic level you could redefine your scope of deterministic to not just include outputs, but also include the external state and side effects, but for practical purposes the above distinction is generally how deterministic and idempotent would be applied in practice in computing. I cannot speak to the math-centric view, if there is a different definition there.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eikenberry 2y ago
  I don't think the string to disk example can be idempotent no matter how you implement it as it is dependent on the external state of the disk.
  - appplication 2y ago
    That may be true on a theoretical level, but if you’re talking practically to a data engineer that’s the definition of idempotence you’re going to find they expect.
    - necovek 2y ago
      Practical consideration might be that a disk may experience a fault in one of the executions: works fine a hundred times but fails on 101st (eg hits disk-full error or a bad block). But that simply means it's harder to implement true idempotency when it comes to disk usage. This is why the problem is usually simplified to ignore unhappy paths.
      - bravetraveler 2y ago
        I fear y'all (or I) may be dancing a bit too deeply into hypothetical here... The idempotent version of this function doesn't blindly write. Most of Ansible, for example, is Python code doing 'state machines' or whatever - checking if changes are needed and facilitating if so. Where y'all assume one function is, actually, an entire script/library. Perhaps I'm fooled by party tricks? Beyond all of this, the disk full example is nebulous. On Linux (at least)... if you open an existing file for writing, the space it is using is reserved. Writing the same data back out should always be possible... just kind of silly. It brings about the risk of corruption in transit; connectors faulty or what-have-we. Physical failure like this isn't something we can expect software to handle/resolve IMO. Wargames and gremlins combined! To truly tie all this together I think we have to consider atomicity

To give a concrete example: some build systems embed a "build number" in the output that increments for each non-clean build (yeah this is stupid but I have seen it). This is deterministic (doesn't change randomly), but not idempotent.

craigching 2y ago

Maybe even hermetic builds? https://bazel.build/basics/hermeticity https://bazel.build/basics/hermeticity

appplication 2y ago

Not speaking to your comment specifically, but adding context to the thread: idempotence would mean having the same result, regardless of whether you run something once, twice, or 10 times, over the same input set. Idempotence requires but goes beyond determinism, as it also accounts for any externalities and side effects. For example, let’s consider a function that accepts a string as an argument and then writes that string to disk. We can consider the disk state as a side effect of the function. The function itself is perfectly deterministic (output string is a predictable and consistent function of input string), but depending on the implementation of side effects it may not be idempotent. If, for example, this function room simply added the output to a file “output.txt”, this file would grow with every incantation, which is not idempotent. If instead we overwrote the output file so that it reflects only the singular output of the previous run, then the side effects would also be deterministic, that would be idempotent. At a pedantic level you could redefine your scope of deterministic to not just include outputs, but also include the external state and side effects, but for practical purposes the above distinction is generally how deterministic and idempotent would be applied in practice in computing. I cannot speak to the math-centric view, if there is a different definition there.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eikenberry 2y ago
I don't think the string to disk example can be idempotent no matter how you implement it as it is dependent on the external state of the disk.
- appplication 2y ago
  That may be true on a theoretical level, but if you’re talking practically to a data engineer that’s the definition of idempotence you’re going to find they expect.
  - necovek 2y ago
    Practical consideration might be that a disk may experience a fault in one of the executions: works fine a hundred times but fails on 101st (eg hits disk-full error or a bad block). But that simply means it's harder to implement true idempotency when it comes to disk usage. This is why the problem is usually simplified to ignore unhappy paths.
    - bravetraveler 2y ago
      I fear y'all (or I) may be dancing a bit too deeply into hypothetical here... The idempotent version of this function doesn't blindly write. Most of Ansible, for example, is Python code doing 'state machines' or whatever - checking if changes are needed and facilitating if so. Where y'all assume one function is, actually, an entire script/library. Perhaps I'm fooled by party tricks? Beyond all of this, the disk full example is nebulous. On Linux (at least)... if you open an existing file for writing, the space it is using is reserved. Writing the same data back out should always be possible... just kind of silly. It brings about the risk of corruption in transit; connectors faulty or what-have-we. Physical failure like this isn't something we can expect software to handle/resolve IMO. Wargames and gremlins combined! To truly tie all this together I think we have to consider atomicity