We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I tried the with_overrides to override cache configuration for a local flyte @task, but it didn't work as expected.
with_overrides
Code:
@task( cache=False, cache_version="v1", cache_serialize=False, ) def to_be_overridden_task(a: str) -> str: return f"*~*~*~{a}*~*~*~" def to_be_overridden_task_wrapper(a: str, cache: bool = False, cache_version: str = "", cache_serialize: bool = False) -> str: return to_be_overridden_task(a=a).with_overrides( cache=cache, cache_version=cache_version, cache_serialize=cache_serialize ) @workflow def my_overridden_wf(a: str): return to_be_overridden_task_wrapper(a=a, cache=True, cache_version="foo", cache_serialize=True)
After pyflyte run, I found the cache is still False and cache_version still ""
cache
False
cache_version
""
After pyflyte run, cache should be overridden to True also cache_version, cache_serialize should be overridden to corresponding values
pyflyte run
cache_serialize
No response
In serialized proto, the cache is still False
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
eapolinario
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Describe the bug
I tried the
with_overrides
to override cache configuration for a local flyte @task, but it didn't work as expected.Code:
After pyflyte run, I found the
cache
is stillFalse
andcache_version
still""
Expected behavior
After
pyflyte run
,cache
should be overridden to True alsocache_version
,cache_serialize
should be overridden to corresponding valuesAdditional context to reproduce
No response
Screenshots
In serialized proto, the cache is still False
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: