[Pools] Add Support for --all When Running sky jobs pool status

[lloyd-brown]

When the user wanted to see more than 10 workers when running sky jobs pool status we had a directive to tell them to use --all but we didn't add the option so the call would error out. This PR adds the option and we can now see more than 10 workers as shown below. (fixes issue #8345)

Tested (run the relevant ones):

• Code formatting: install pre-commit (auto-check on commit) or bash format.sh
• Any manual or new tests for this PR (please specify below)
• All smoke tests: /smoke-test (CI) or pytest tests/test_smoke.py (local)
• Relevant individual tests: /smoke-test -k test_name (CI) or pytest tests/test_smoke.py::test_name (local)
• Backward compatibility: /quicktest-core (CI) or pytest tests/smoke_tests/test_backward_compat.py (local)

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @lloyd-brown, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces the --all flag to the sky jobs pool status command, addressing a previous oversight where the option was documented but not functional. This enhancement allows users to view a complete list of all workers, improving the utility and accuracy of the job pool status reporting by removing the arbitrary 10-worker display limit.

Highlights

• New --all Option: The sky jobs pool status command now supports a new --all option, allowing users to display all workers without limitation.
• Enhanced Worker Visibility: This change resolves an issue where users were previously instructed to use --all but the option was not implemented, preventing them from viewing more than 10 workers.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[lloyd-brown]

/smoke-test -k test_pools

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds the --all flag to the sky jobs pool status command, which was previously missing despite being mentioned in a help message. The implementation is correct. I've suggested a small refactoring to avoid shadowing the Python built-in all() function, which improves code clarity and maintainability.