fix: exempt the stability calibration from the consumer-values check - #40
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The deviation-penalty calibration drives its solves in-process, synthesizing a baseline and a main scenario per Broyden iteration, so the baseline named in `config/calibration/stability.yaml` is not a scenario the workflow declares. The stricter check introduced in #38 therefore rejected the config outright and `tools/calibrate stability` could not build its DAG.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
tools/calibrate stabilitycannot build its DAG on currentmain:#38 replaced the lax consumer-values check with a stricter one that requires
consumer_values.baseline_scenarioto name a declared scenario. That is theright rule for ordinary configs, but the deviation-penalty calibration drives
its solves in-process:
calibrate_deviation_penalty.pysynthesizes_cal_baseline_iterNN/_cal_main_iterNNper Broyden iteration and passesthem straight to
build_scenario_entry. They are never Snakemake scenarios,so the placeholder in
config/calibration/stability.yamlhas nothing toresolve against.
Skipping the check when
deviation_penalty.calibration.generateis set followsthe
is_generation_runconvention already used by the provenance validator.Declaring the placeholder in
scenarios:instead would have leaked a phantomscenario into
list_scenarios().Found while re-checking calibration fingerprints after #38; regression test
added.