Re: [Condor-users] Offset $(process) or simple arithmetic in JDL file

[Matthew Farrellee <matt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/15/2011 08:58 PM, Emir Imamagic wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just spent some time trying to figure out is there a way to offset
> $(Process) variable or at least do some simple arithmetic and store it
> in another macro. We have couple of users who could benefit from queuing
> large amount of jobs, but it is too complicated for them to tune their
> input files and arguments to 0-N. Right now they are using scripts but
> it would be much more elegant to have a solution based purely on JDL.
>
> Initially it seemed impossible according to threads:
> - "Condor submit file and process number" (16.7.2004)
> - "Question about $(Process)" (4.7.2005)
> - "$(Process)" (24.6.2006)
> - "process number to start higher than zero" (19.8.2010)
> - "Help with ClassAd syntax: offset $(process)" (2.2.2011.)
>
> Finally I was lucky and spotted this thread from 2008: "$(Process) not
> starting at 0" which indicated that the solution is implemented in 7.1
> and should work like this:
> $$([$(PROCESS)+100])
> This is even listed in new features of 7.1:
>
> http://research.cs.wisc.edu/condor/manual/v7.1/8_3Development_Release.html#SECTION00933000000000000000
>
>
> Since that is an old, development version seemed logical to me that this
> feature is still there in the latest stable version (condor-7.6.4-1).
> Unfortunately simple test proved me wrong, expression is not expanded
> and I ended up with file with containing $$([0+1]) in its name.
>
> Does anyone know what happened with this feature or how did it get lost
> between 7.1 and 7.6? I quickly went through Version history but couldn't
> find anything.
>
> Also, if anyone has a different suggestion it will be more then welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance

It still works, but apparently has some cruft if you use it in a file name.

$ cat test.sub
cmd = /bin/echo
args = $$([$(Process)+100])
output = test.out.$$([$(Process)+100])
queue 10

$ cat test.out.*
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

However,

$ ls test.out.*
0 test.out.$$([0+100])  0 test.out.$$([5+100])  4 test.out.100  4 
test.out.105
0 test.out.$$([1+100])  0 test.out.$$([6+100])  4 test.out.101  4 
test.out.106
0 test.out.$$([2+100])  0 test.out.$$([7+100])  4 test.out.102  4 
test.out.107
0 test.out.$$([3+100])  0 test.out.$$([8+100])  4 test.out.103  4 
test.out.108
0 test.out.$$([4+100])  0 test.out.$$([9+100])  4 test.out.104  4 
test.out.109

condor_submit is being too helpful, checking that the output file can be 
written to upfront. In this case, condor_submit could check the correct 
file, but in general condor_submit has no hope of knowing what the 
expression will evaluate to. Seems condor_submit should skip this file 
check when $$([]) is present.

https://condor-wiki.cs.wisc.edu/index.cgi/tktview?tn=2720

Best,


matt