Matt Seddon

> From my side, the task and experiments are almost one to one correspondence, we can hide the task concept and only expose experiments to the UI. The only exception...

> like should we keep the timestamp field empty in the table for those or not? I assumed that the created date for queue tasks would differ from the one...

> But we do show that experiment is running, is it enough? Or we need something else? There are unnaturally long gaps when it appears that nothing is happening/running. We...

> could you give more details please? Are we sure that "queue" can solve this? May be I'm missing the idea here still... When experiments are being run in the...

This might not be a problem introduced by the new queuing mechanism. I generally have stayed away from queuing/running experiments due to #828

Prototype for adding queue worker information to the UI: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/37993418/179434079-f51dc8b4-3a61-4b3d-9062-383be123e2b8.mov Note: Icon in the experiments table should be a spinner.

Under the current implementation the stop button in the UI (shown below) will behave unexpectedly.  We will need to detect when the queue is being processed and show the...

> > * Whether or not to give users access to queue task logs from the UI. > > The obvious next question to me is why I can see...

@karajan1001 @pmrowla can you confirm what is happening in the background/under the hood when a task is being picked up from the queue and turned into a running experiment? There...

Close to a duplicate of #456. I think we only need one of these issues.