filesystem warehouse usability improvements

[atravitz]

I think that creating a new filesystem warehouse and loading an existing one should have different guard rails.

otherwise, you:

• can think you’re loading an existing warehouse with data in it, but instead a new, empty warehouse is created in a slightly different location
• think you're loading a new warehouse, but you've just added tasks to an existing warehouse when you didn't mean to

LLM / AI generated code disclosure

LLMs or other AI-powered tools (beyond simple IDE use cases) were used in this contribution: yes / no
If yes, please provide details here:

Checklist

• All new code is appropriately documented (user-facing code must have complete docstrings).
• Added a news entry, or the changes are not user-facing.
• Ran pre-commit: you can run pre-commit locally or comment on this PR with pre-commit.ci autofix.
• Filled in the AI generated code disclosure.

Manual Tests: these are slow so don't need to be run every commit, only before merging and when relevant changes are made (generally at reviewer-discretion).

• GPU integration tests
• example notebook testing
• packaging tests: run this for any large feature PRs or PRs that add test data.

Developers certificate of origin

• I certify that this contribution is covered by the MIT License here and the Developer Certificate of Origin at https://developercertificate.org/.

[ethanholz]

I think this is great, a few minor notes but non-blocking

[ethanholz]

I like the error, but I am a little concerned about how it gets passed down to a user. If a user reruns a command using this under the hood will it make sense? Do we even care about that here?

[ethanholz]

I am sure you are aware but seems there are changes to this in Python 3.14 https://docs.python.org/3.14/whatsnew/3.14.html#from-future-import-annotations

[atravitz]

thanks for the link! I think this is fine in this instance, since it's pulling in Python 3.14 functionality.

[atravitz]

@ethanholz note that I have the same complaint about exorcist TaskStatusDB.from_filename() - it silently creates a new, empty, db if the path doesn't exist.

[atravitz]

If upon initial creation we create all the store top directories, then when pointing to a an existing warehouse, we could do a quick validation to make sure all the dirs exist.
Otherwise, if you point it to a generic non-warehouse directory, trying to access any of the stores would just create them in real time.

I think the broader question here is "what makes a directory a FileSystemWarehouse?" and how do we validate that.

[ethanholz]

If upon initial creation we create all the store top directories, then when pointing to a an existing warehouse, we could do a quick validation to make sure all the dirs exist. Otherwise, if you point it to a generic non-warehouse directory, trying to access any of the stores would just create them in real time.

I think the broader question here is "what makes a directory a FileSystemWarehouse?" and how do we validate that.

I think this is the right path forward!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.33333% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.57%. Comparing base (cc8edd5) to head (86ebbf7).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/openfe/orchestration/exorcist_utils.py	83.33%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/openfe/storage/warehouse.py	92.30%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                       @@
##           epic/execution_improvements    #2155      +/-   ##
===============================================================
- Coverage                        90.57%   90.57%   -0.01%     
===============================================================
  Files                              217      217              
  Lines                            21522    21549      +27     
===============================================================
+ Hits                             19494    19518      +24     
- Misses                            2028     2031       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fast-tests	90.57% <93.33%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.