Re: [HTCondor-users] better-analyze bug?

[John M Knoeller <johnkn@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's a kind of a printing bug.   The ! is preserved in the analysis, but is getting lost when the analysis steps are labeled
for output.
 
It would be clearer to  show [0] as ! regexp(...) and give it the correct count for that sub-expression, but that's a harder fix.

What is actually happening in the code is that step [2] is evaluating the sub-expression

!regexp("Intel.*Gold 6254", TARGET.cpuinfo_model_name) && TARGET.Arch == "X86_64"

but (mis)labeling it as [0] && [1]  (it should perhaps be labelled ![0] && [1] ?)

This is a known bug, I just haven't had time to fix it yet. 

-tj 

-----Original Message-----
From: HTCondor-users <htcondor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Stuart Anderson
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:47 PM
To: condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HTCondor-users] better-analyze bug?

Is it a bug or a feature that condor_q -better-analyze (version 8.8.6) drops "!", e.g.,

Requirements = !regexp("Intel.*Gold 6254", TARGET.cpuinfo_model_name)

         Slots
Step    Matched  Condition
-----  --------  ---------
[0]          48  regexp("Intel.*Gold 6254",TARGET.cpuinfo_model_name)
[1]       17847  TARGET.Arch == "X86_64"
[2]       17799  [0] && [1]
[5]       16739  TARGET.Disk >= RequestDisk
[6]       16729  [2] && [5]
[7]       16769  TARGET.Memory >= RequestMemory
[8]       15692  [6] && [7]


Line [0] is strictly true for this pool, but not the Condition being used in line [2] (pun intended).

Thanks.

--
Stuart Anderson
sba@xxxxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
HTCondor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
subject: Unsubscribe
You can also unsubscribe by visiting
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-users

The archives can be found at:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/htcondor-users/