Add root flag to verdi process list

[r0hansaxena]

Summary

Adds a --root flag to verdi process list to filter for root processes — processes that have no caller and were submitted directly by the user rather than spawned by another process.

Closes #7170

Motivation

When working with large workflow histories, it can be difficult to identify which processes are top-level entries vs. sub-processes spawned inside a workflow. This flag makes it easy to list only the "entry points".

Changes

• src/aiida/cmdline/params/options/main.py: Added a new ROOT overridable CLI option.
• src/aiida/cmdline/commands/cmd_process.py: Integrated --root into the process_list command.
• src/aiida/tools/query/calculation.py: Updated CalculationQueryBuilder to identify parentless processes using an efficient outer join on incoming CALL_CALC and CALL_WORK links, filtering for nodes where no caller exists.
• tests/cmdline/commands/test_process_list_root.py: Added tests covering simple parent-child hierarchies, deeply nested chains, and interaction with --all.

Usage

# List only root (top-level) active processes
verdi process list --root

# List all root processes including finished ones
verdi process list --root --all

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 13.51351% with 32 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 29.97%. Comparing base (b8b77cc) to head (b1d0de1).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/aiida/orm/querybuilder.py	12.00%	22 Missing ⚠️
src/aiida/tools/query/calculation.py	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/aiida/cmdline/commands/cmd_process.py	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
.../aiida/storage/psql_dos/orm/querybuilder/joiner.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (b8b77cc) and HEAD (b1d0de1). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (b8b77cc)	HEAD (b1d0de1)
	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7270       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   79.75%   29.97%   -49.78%     
===========================================
  Files         566      566               
  Lines       43897    43871       -26     
===========================================
- Hits        35006    13144    -21862     
- Misses       8891    30727    +21836     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[edan-bainglass]

Thanks @r0hansaxena. Looks good so far 💪

One note regarding your tests - we currently consolidate all verdi process testing under cmdline/commands/test_process.py. Specifically for verdi process list, have a look here - tests/cmdline/commands/test_process.py#L328. I'd ask you to please integrate your tests into this location 🙏 It will help with maintenance down the road.

Update

Your tests failed (also the pre-commit) 🥲 Please try to resolve this. You can of course ping me if you need assistance 🙂

[edan-bainglass]

Thanks @r0hansaxena. Left a couple of comments. Also, are you running tests locally to make sure everything passes on your end?

[danielhollas]

Heya, just a quick question, should we bikeshed the name of the option a bit? Is --root descriptive enough? Should it perhaps be --only-roots? Or something else?

[r0hansaxena]

Thanks @r0hansaxena. Left a couple of comments. Also, are you running tests locally to make sure everything passes on your end?

thanks! the core listing and sql tests are passing fine on my end.

[r0hansaxena]

I have also fixed the linting issues, I'll make changes if necessary after the checks are done running once again accordingly.

[r0hansaxena]

> Heya, just a quick question, should we bikeshed the name of the option a bit? Is --root descriptive enough? Should it perhaps be --only-roots? Or something else?

I do agree, --only-roots is more descriptive, I have made changes for the same :)

[r0hansaxena]

the ci checks are failing, I'll address the issues and make the necessary changes

[edan-bainglass]

Heya, just a quick question, should we bikeshed the name of the option a bit? Is --root descriptive enough? Should it perhaps be --only-roots? Or something else?

Thanks @danielhollas. Though I agree that --root is somewhat ambiguous, --only-roots is somehow already too long to type. We have --all, not --all-processes, or --show-all. How about just --roots?

@r0hansaxena please hold off on updating this part until we reach a consensus 🙂

[edan-bainglass]

Still failing 🥲 Have a look.

[r0hansaxena]

Still failing 🥲 Have a look.

yes, I have made changes, it should work fine this time

[r0hansaxena]

Still failing 🥲 Have a look.

yes, I have made changes, it should work fine this time

i will address the failing ci checks again

[danielhollas]

Please first verify the tests locally, you can run them as

uv run pytest -m presto -n auto

[r0hansaxena]

Please first verify the tests locally, you can run them as

uv run pytest -m presto -n auto

yes, I have been working on the same, I'll update it here

[danielhollas]

Thanks @danielhollas. Though I agree that --root is somewhat ambiguous, --only-roots is somehow already too long to type. We have --all, not --all-processes, or --show-all. How about just --roots?

Looking at the current options (verdi process list -h) I agree that "only" seems superfluous. Yes, --roots seems better than --root. Paging @mbercx as the local neighborhood spiderman UX bikeshedding expert. :-)