Stu Hood

I've confirmed that this is working via #7735: huzzah! Thanks @Eric-Arellano, @chrisjrn, @tdyas. Before calling this resolved though, I'll need to think about how we can migrate from the current...

Ok, after talking with @Eric-Arellano, it sounds like they had already included some backwards compatibility for the `--remote-execution` flag. So this one was probably already resolvable as soon as they...

> **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** > > Currently (as far as I can tell) the only way to test that an `experimental_shell_command` works properly...

#16952 landed: thanks @tdyas!

How would you feel about a global "batch size" setting instead? The `test` rules could generically batch deterministically into batches of that size across test targets with identical `Field` values....

> how I could manually enforce that two groups of tests _never_ run in the same batch with just a batch-size parameter. I'm not sure that you need to. Assuming...

@danxmoran's design for this is over here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0Q43bRod_EeVP4eQpcN36NMlxZ4CpRzTl2gMQ5HHvg/edit#

Mm, yea: this should be straightforward to do... it should map directly to setting a `Process(.., working_directory=..)`, which becomes: https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/blob/51f067588a1b382ee49940540c6b6cb1e2c0ab2e/src/rust/engine/process_execution/src/lib.rs#L472-L476

The changes are missing here.

One way to resolve this might be to create the venv that we use directly from the `3rdparty/python/user_reqs.lock` lockfile, via PEX.