Descriptive missing job.rds file error

[stuvet]

I've been troubleshooting stability of batchtools when used on Slurm with the default makeClusterFunctionsSlurm (PR #276 & #277 ).

The last (rare) error I can reproduce is:

Expected Behaviour

• If a submitted job is requeued by Slurm:
  1. batchtools should not report an expired status -> Mapped missing Slurm job state codes #277.
  2. If the job should have run without error at first submission, the requeued job should also run successfully (assuming no fatal hardware errors)

Problem

• Slurm jobs which are requeued because of a previous hardware failure fail within 30 seconds of starting the second run.

Reprex

• Awkward, because it relies on an available (non-mission-critical) Slurm cluster, but manually deleting the worker node (via GCP) of a running & error-free job results in a requeue, a delay, then a reliable error about 20 seconds after the job begins its second run (file path removed for posting):

Error in gzfile(file, "rb") : cannot open the connection
Calls: <Anonymous> -> doJobCollection.character -> readRDS -> gzfile
In addition: Warning message:
In gzfile(file, "rb") :
  cannot open compressed file '.../jobs/job929872958e6074e5662a4c9hd3f312f4.rds', probable reason 'No such file or directory'

Cause

batchtools:::doJobCollection.character deletes the jobCollection file.rds on the first run, so when the failed job gets requeued the file is no longer there, causing the error.

Workaround

• Passing chunks.as.arrayjobs = TRUE in the resources request prevents this error (even if jobs are submitted singly) as it prevents the first run of the job deleting the jobCollection .RDS.

Questions

• Apart from needing to clean up the files afterwards, can you see any downsides of using chunks.as.arrayjobs = TRUE for single jobs too? If not, this could be a useful default setting for @HenrikBengtsson when submitting jobs from future.batchtools, simply to avoid triggering an unhandled error, and to allow jobs to requeue as expected (assuming backend configuration allows).
• Perhaps a more explicit option would be better - allow.requeue or prevent.requeue?

[stuvet]

Changed to 'Issue'