-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
repro: persisting outputs invalidates build cache #1877
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
Conversation
dvc/repo/reproduce.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we forcing everything though?
tests/test_repro.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not testing running dvc run twice, which is where persist should make second run ignore build cache and actually run the command.
|
For the record: Discussed this privately. Need to undo the |
removed the code that was messing up with reproduce and left only run
tests/func/test_run.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There shouldn't be a warning during the first run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@efiop , should we skip the overwrite stage file confirmation when outs-persist is used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MrOutis why would we want that though? 🙂
tests/func/test_run.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we test that that warning is not printed during the first run now? 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done, @efiop (sorry for such back-and-forth, I should've test it correctly beforehand 😅)
efiop
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
Fix #1852