-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 620
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
[BUG] Launch Plan Registered Twice #5073
Comments
Hey @jasonlai1218, great to see you diving deep into Flyte again! Hope all's well on your end. 😊 Based on the logs you've provided, it seems like two launch plans are being registered because the workflow itself is being registered as a launch plan, and then the explicit launch plan you've defined is also being registered. This is evident from these two lines in your logs:
The first line is registering the workflow This behavior is expected in Flyte. When you register a workflow, Flyte automatically creates a default launch plan for it. This default launch plan has the same name as the workflow and allows you to execute the workflow without having to define a separate launch plan. Then, when you define an explicit launch plan using If you only want to register the explicit launch plan and not the default one, you can register the tasks and workflows separately using the
This way, only the explicit launch plan you've defined will be registered, and not the default one. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. Sources
|
The dosubot is almost correct
There is a default launch plan that is always registered for every workflow, which is why there are two. |
Describe the bug
I write a launch plan
and I execute cmd:
FLYTE_SDK_LOGGING_LEVEL=20 pyflyte register --non-fast -p flytesnacks --domain development dev_register_lp.py --version t1
then I found that the result was...
I don't know why there are two
LAUNCH_PLAN
Expected behavior
I think only one is correct
Additional context to reproduce
Screenshots
Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: