Allow creating instances without waiting #80

jvstme · 2026-02-09T12:10:07Z

Add wait_for_status parameter to InstancesService.create, similar to ClustersService.create. Setting wait_for_status=None allows to return from the method immediately.

Resolves #79

Add `InstancesService.create_nowait` method that returns immediately after sending a create request to the API.

huksley · 2026-02-09T14:10:14Z

Good idea!

Can this be rewritten to support the same syntax as for clusters, i.e.

...instance.create(
            # Set to None to not wait for provisioning but return immediately
            wait_for_status=verda_client.constants.cluster_status.PROVISIONING
)

jvstme · 2026-02-09T14:50:47Z

@huksley, even with wait_for_status=None, ClustersService.create still issues two API calls: POST /clusters followed by GET /clusters/<id>. We could implement the same behavior for instances, but ideally we’d like to avoid the second request so we never end up in the following situation:

POST /instances — success
GET /instances/<id> — error (API error, network issue, etc.)
Result: the instance is created and starts accumulating charges, but its ID is never returned by InstancesService.create, leaving the application unaware of its existence.

Here are a few possible ways to address this:

Introduce a separate InstancesService.create_nowait method that does not call GET /instances/<id> (as proposed in this PR).
Make the return type of InstancesService.create depend on the wait_for_status parameter:
- If wait_for_status is set, return an Instance.
- If wait_for_status is None, return the instance ID as str (since POST /instances only returns the ID).
Or introduce a separate parameter to control the return type.
Update the REST API so POST /instances returns a full Instance object. Since this is not backward-compatible, this would require either a new API version (/v2) or an opt-in mechanism via a request parameter.

Please let me know if any of these options seem reasonable, or if you have alternative suggestions.

huksley · 2026-02-10T08:39:06Z

Would it be ok if instance.create() with with wait_for_status=None would return instance populated with ID and values passed as request payload? that way, no get instance method will be needed

jvstme · 2026-02-10T13:21:04Z

@huksley, InstancesService.create doesn't have enough details to populate all instance fields, including price_per_hour, status, created_at, cpu, gpu, memory, etc.

jvstme · 2026-02-10T13:24:00Z

@huksley, I’ve added the wait_for_status parameter as you initially suggested. For now, I think we can live with the extra GET /instances/<id> call. This still isn’t ideal, since instance loss remains possible, but it’s less likely than before. We’d appreciate it if this could be improved further in the future, possibly by returning the full instance object from POST /instances.

I also had to add support for callables in wait_for_status; otherwise, it wouldn’t be backward compatible with the existing behavior, which checks for status != ordered instead of waiting for a specific status.

huksley · 2026-02-11T09:51:09Z

verda/instances/_instances.py

            payload['pricing'] = pricing
        id = self._http_client.post(INSTANCES_ENDPOINT, json=payload).text

+        if not wait_for_status:


Wouldn't this completely change logic because it will not wait for status but immediately return instance without wait_for_status set?

By default, wait_for_status is set to lambda s: s != InstanceStatus.ORDERED, which means the method doesn't return here and nothing changes for existing users that are not setting wait_for_status.

For those users that will decide to set wait_for_status=None, the method will return here immediately, which is the expected behavior.

The implementation is consistent with ClustersService.create.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates instance creation to optionally skip polling/waiting for a status transition after the create request.

Changes:

Added a wait_for_status kw-only parameter to InstancesService.create to control whether/how to wait for a desired status.
Updated polling logic to support either a specific status or a predicate callable.
Added unit tests covering different wait_for_status behaviors.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

File	Description
verda/instances/_instances.py	Adds `wait_for_status` parameter and adjusts create polling/early-return logic.
tests/unit_tests/instances/test_instances.py	Adds parameterized tests validating new waiting behavior for create.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-02-11T13:44:34Z

verda/instances/_instances.py

        pricing: Pricing | None = None,
        coupon: str | None = None,
        *,
+        wait_for_status: str | Callable[[str], bool] | None = lambda s: s != InstanceStatus.ORDERED,


The PR title/description says it adds InstancesService.create_nowait, but the diff only changes create() by introducing wait_for_status. Either add the described create_nowait method (e.g., a small wrapper calling create(..., wait_for_status=None)), or update the PR metadata to reflect the actual API change.

Updated the description

verda/instances/_instances.py

Copilot · 2026-02-11T13:44:34Z

verda/instances/_instances.py

        pricing: Pricing | None = None,
        coupon: str | None = None,
        *,
+        wait_for_status: str | Callable[[str], bool] | None = lambda s: s != InstanceStatus.ORDERED,


wait_for_status is typed as str | Callable[[str], bool], but the code/tests appear to use InstanceStatus values (and instance.status is compared to InstanceStatus). This should be typed consistently (e.g., InstanceStatus | Callable[[InstanceStatus], bool] | None) to avoid misleading API contracts and type-checking issues.

InstanceStatus is a namespace for str constants. The actual type passed to wait_for_status is str and not InstanceStatus

Copilot · 2026-02-11T13:44:35Z

verda/instances/_instances.py

+            if callable(wait_for_status):
+                if wait_for_status(instance.status):
+                    return instance
+            elif instance.status == wait_for_status:
                return instance


wait_for_status is typed as str | Callable[[str], bool], but the code/tests appear to use InstanceStatus values (and instance.status is compared to InstanceStatus). This should be typed consistently (e.g., InstanceStatus | Callable[[InstanceStatus], bool] | None) to avoid misleading API contracts and type-checking issues.

Suggested change

if callable(wait_for_status):

if wait_for_status(instance.status):

return instance

elif instance.status == wait_for_status:

return instance

status_value = getattr(instance.status, 'value', instance.status)

if callable(wait_for_status):

if wait_for_status(status_value):

return instance

else:

target_status = getattr(wait_for_status, 'value', wait_for_status)

if status_value == target_status:

return instance

InstanceStatus is a namespace for str constants. The actual type passed to wait_for_status is str and not InstanceStatus

Copilot · 2026-02-11T13:44:35Z

verda/instances/_instances.py

            contract: Optional contract type for the instance.
            pricing: Optional pricing model for the instance.
            coupon: Optional coupon code for discounts.
+            wait_for_status: Status to wait for the instance to reach, or callable that returns True when the desired status is reached. Default to any status other than ORDERED. If None, no wait is performed.


Grammar: change 'Default to' to 'Defaults to' for readability.

Suggested change

wait_for_status: Status to wait for the instance to reach, or callable that returns True when the desired status is reached. Default to any status other than ORDERED. If None, no wait is performed.

wait_for_status: Status to wait for the instance to reach, or callable that returns True when the desired status is reached. Defaults to any status other than ORDERED. If None, no wait is performed.

The current docstring is based on and consistent with ClustersService.create

Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>

Allow creating instances without waiting

0f22899

Add `InstancesService.create_nowait` method that returns immediately after sending a create request to the API.

create_nowait -> create(wait_for_status)

d378207

huksley requested changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

huksley requested a review from Copilot February 11, 2026 13:42

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update verda/instances/_instances.py

4aa422f

Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>

jvstme requested a review from huksley February 11, 2026 13:59

	wait_for_status: Status to wait for the instance to reach, or callable that returns True when the desired status is reached. Default to any status other than ORDERED. If None, no wait is performed.
	wait_for_status: Status to wait for the instance to reach, or callable that returns True when the desired status is reached. Defaults to any status other than ORDERED. If None, no wait is performed.

Allow creating instances without waiting #80

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Allow creating instances without waiting #80

Uh oh!

Conversation

jvstme commented Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

huksley commented Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jvstme commented Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

huksley commented Feb 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jvstme commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

jvstme commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

huksley Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvstme Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvstme Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvstme Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvstme Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvstme Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

jvstme commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

huksley commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jvstme commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

huksley commented Feb 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading