parameter overwrite does not work

[frederic-michaud]

The parameter overwrite does not work. It specifies how present output is treated if there is a danger of overwriting. By default, the parameter is set to 1, so it overwrites the old output by the new one. This is working fine.
The manual, however, claim that if this parameter is set to zero, if the output of the running simulation will overwrite present files, quantiNemo will ask the user how to proceed and will suspend the simulation until the user responds to the question.
In general, such behaviors are not really recommended for software which will run on a cluster since the job stop without returning and the user is not notified... So we basically wait for nothing. This is probably why the default value is set to 1.

From what I saw, the file handling part of the code became rather messy lately, leading to this bug and to bug #2. Consequently, I don't think that there is an easy way out. I propose that we just remove this option from the manual for now.

If we happen to continue working on Qn after Qn 2, we should decide if this is an important feature or if we can drop it. I'm in favor to drop it because I really don't think it's a vital feature but more a "nice to have", but all these "nice to have" are difficult to maintain and have a cost in term of more important functionality.

[sneuensc]

That’s fine with me. Cheers, Sam On 21 Mar 2018, at 11:13, frederic-michaud <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The parameter overwrite does not work. It specifies how present output is treated if there is a danger of overwriting. By default, the parameter is set to 1, so it overwrites the old output by the new one. This is working fine. The manual, however, claim that if this parameter is set to zero, if the output of the running simulation will overwrite present files, quantiNemo will ask the user how to proceed and will suspend the simulation until the user responds to the question. In general, such behaviors are not really recommended for software which will run on a cluster since the job stop without returning and the user is not notified... So we basically wait for nothing. This is probably why the default value is set to 1. From what I saw, the file handling part of the code became rather messy lately, leading to this bug and to bug #2<#2>. Consequently, I don't think that there is an easy way out. I propose that we just remove this option from the manual for now. If we happen to continue working on Qn after Qn 2, we should decide if this is an important feature or if we can drop it. I'm in favor to drop it because I really don't think it's a vital feature but more a "nice to have", but all these "nice to have" are difficult to maintain and have a cost in term of more important functionality. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#13>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALGyCfZ0bFMU5XdEnM8Tft8-lQwy9h1-ks5tgieugaJpZM4SzS6q>. {"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/jgx65/qnemo_dev","title":"jgx65/qnemo_dev","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/jgx65/qnemo_dev"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"DESCRIPTION","message":"parameter overwrite does not work (#13)"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"#13"}}}