Update README.rst warning: sacred vs ipython notebooks

[matt32106]

No description provided.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 90.889% when pulling b2ba98c on matt32106:master into bc9c0f3 on IDSIA:master.

[Qwlouse]

Hey matt32106,
thank you for adding that note! You are right it might be important to point that out.
I'd like to clarify though, that launching experiments from a notebook is possible. It is in fact a very common thing in my own workflow. I do that by importing the experiment from a file and calling ex.run(...) from the notebook.
What is not working is to define an experiment in a notebook.
If you could clarify that, I'd be happy to merge.

[Qwlouse]

Actually I've decided now to fix #100. Defining an experiment in a notebook is still not recommended, but it will work. This might remove the need for your note. What do you think?

[matt32106]

Well, i have to say it will be easier for me, but the point you made in #100 was very valid.
Maybe you should add a non default option in the call of experiment so that user get a chance to reconsider (unsecure=true or something like that)

[Qwlouse]

That is a good point. Maybe I should change the behaviour to fail by default in interactive sessions, and have a unsafe=True or maybe better interactive=True option that converts this into a warning. I'll do that soon.

IMHO this would remove the requirement for an explicit warning in the README. What do you think?

[matt32106]

I think that it should be somewhere in the documentation because people will have to make the link between ipython/jupyter and interactive = True/False, could be in the readme or module documentation but it should be mentioned at least once (for google :) ) somewhere

just my 2 cents :)
Matt

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:21:10 -0700
From: git.m7.213feed42b.notifications#github.com@ob.0sg.net
To: reply@reply.github.com
CC: git.m7@xoxy.net
Subject: Re: [IDSIA/sacred] Update README.rst warning: sacred vs ipython
it: notifications@github.com exclusive) notebooks (#103)

That is a good point. Maybe I should change the behaviour to fail by default in interactive sessions, and have a unsafe=True or maybe better interactive=True option that converts this into a warning. I'll do that soon.

IMHO this would remove the requirement for an explicit warning in the README. What do you think?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

[Qwlouse]

I've added a warning in the sphinx documentation and explained the interactive=True flag there. The error message and the API docs also contain the right pointers. I think this should be enough, and therefore close this issue.