Frederic Brochu wrote:
>>Yes, that is it exactly. I deleted that line because when I wanted to
>>retreive output from the list I was using my "for" loop and didn't want
>>to have interfering content. Presumably this is a "feature". I wonder
>>if there is any chance to have it re-classified as a "bug".
>
>
> May I suggest to include a filter line in your "for" loop to skip the
> header (you can check, for example, that the line you are reading is
> starting by "https" ) and leave edg-job-submit happy?
Yes, I've already done that.
> P.S: Be careful with "automatic" retrieval: if two "edg-job-get-output"
> are running in parallel, they will interfere with each other. Locally, you
> will get an overwrite. On the RB side, the second edg-job-get-output might
> arrive at the time where the first one finishes, deleting the Output
> Sandbox directory. Hence partial retrievals...
Argh. You've got to be kidding. That is a serious problem! How can
this possibly be? Do they use hard-coded temporary file names or
something? Of course I do them in parallel! It takes ages to wait for
each one to complete.
Is this registered as a bug? If not, I will input it immediately.
Cheers,
Ian.
--
Ian Stokes-Rees [log in to unmask]
Particle Physics, Oxford http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~stokes
|