-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ENH: Add "run up to this step" option #858
Comments
Since we do have caching now, I would even go so far as to say that we could replace the existing That way, we'd also avoid having to construct a dependency tree for each step (in order to ensure that all required input has been generated) We could actually deprecate |
I find the --run-until clearer than --step, with respect to what is actually done. The doc should than make clear that only steps for which a config change occurred will be rerun. |
No, i think this could be generated automatically these days |
Is it normal that the preprocessing pipeline is run again after an update of the pipeline?
|
Yes it's normal -- if the code of a step changes the caching function detects it and says the step should be rerun. This should be why the data quality step was skipped (we didn't change that code lately) but MF step ran (we've fixed bugs there in the last month or so). It would be dangerous / a bug if it didn't behave this way. So when you update any steps that have changed compared to your old version will need to rerun whichever steps have been modified. |
@larsoner I don't find the quote but you asked how long a rerun takes if everything is cached: |
I think I have a related request - would it be possible to only run steps from a certain point onwards? One example scenario where this would be useful is if you obtain the intermediate processing files from a collaborator and would like to run the remaining steps. Please let me know if this should be a separate issue instead. |
We don't have a "please run everything up to this step" functionality right now, do we? Do you think we could implement this somehow?
Originally posted by @hoechenberger in #857 (comment)
Might be a good idea to suggest that in general people prefer this to the
--steps
option, which is config-change-unsafe.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: