Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue a warning instead of silently not writing checkpoints on filename conflict #254

Open
asnelling opened this issue Nov 5, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@asnelling
Copy link

asnelling commented Nov 5, 2022

I'll take a stab at a root-cause and PR after my current project. Apologies if this is a dupe, case of operator-error, or no longer an issue; I'm new to neat-python. 馃槃

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Sometimes (when?) checkpoints are not created. This is annoying if you only notice this after your machine already spent hours of precious cycles only to run the exact thing again (because you need the checkpoints).

Describe the solution you'd like

Issue a warning if creating a checkpoint fails, ideally right away before the engineer leaves the terminal.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context

My initial suspicion was that neat wasn't creating checkpoints because checkpoint files already existed from a previous run with the same prefix. However, deleting these and running again still produced no checkpoints.

It may be a bug that the checkpoints aren't created, but I'm not familiar with neat yet to determine this. Either way, a warning, possibly with an explanation, that checkpoints will not be created would save some time and wasted CPU cycles.

neat-python==0.92

Checkpoints configured like so:

p.add_reporter(neat.Checkpointer(generation_interval=1,
                                 time_interval_seconds=600,
                                 filename_prefix='neat-checkpoint-'))
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant