Skip to content
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

AlgorithmID is overwritten #3011

Closed
4 tasks done
Doggie52 opened this issue Mar 17, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

AlgorithmID is overwritten #3011

Doggie52 opened this issue Mar 17, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@Doggie52
Copy link
Contributor

Doggie52 commented Mar 17, 2019

Expected Behavior

The AlgorithmId set in Initialize() using SetAlgorithmId() is kept constant throughout the life of the algorithm.

Actual Behavior

AlgorithmId is overwritten at

algorithm.SetAlgorithmId(job.AlgorithmId);
.

Potential Solution

Perhaps the job.AlgorithmId should try to pull its value from the algorithm first?

Reproducing the Problem

In Initialize() execute SetAlgorithmId( "test" );. Somewhere outside of this function, debug and inspect the value of AlgorithmId.

System Information

Windows x64.

Related Issue

#2472

Checklist

  • I have completely filled out this template
  • I have confirmed that this issue exists on the current master branch
  • I have confirmed that this is not a duplicate issue by searching issues
  • I have provided detailed steps to reproduce the issue
@Martin-Molinero
Copy link
Member

Hey @Doggie52!
Believe SetAlgorithmId() isn't intended to be called by the algorithm itself. Recently we merged PR #4156 where we added a couple of configuration options and cmdline arguments "algorithm-id" & "results-destination-folder", which I think should help solve the underlying issue and avoid calling SetAlgorithmId(). Let us know if this solves the issue and we can close it

@Doggie52
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey!

Looks great - I won't be able to test this anytime soon but it does look like #4156 would have solved it.

@Martin-Molinero
Copy link
Member

Hey!

Looks great - I won't be able to test this anytime soon but it does look like #4156 would have solved it.

Thanks! Closing this issue for now then

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants