[Users] use of NO_ALLOCATION in simfactory machine definition files

[Roland Haas]

Hello all,

> That is a good thought. Not every machine requires an allocation
> name. If we would make it a required field, it would force users to
> choose something even for machine that don't need it. On the other
> hand, we could work around that by providing 'something' (notneeded?)
> for those machines, and not use the string in the qsub script.
> Although, that does sound a little 'hacky'.
> 
> I would suspect that making it optional begs the question what
> simfactory should use to replace the potentially present strings in
> the qsub file with, and why it should warn or abort if none was given.
Making it optional or required does not make much of a difference given
that right now sim setup puts an "allocation" entry into the [default]
section so that if the machine does not define an allocation the
[default] one would be used.

Note that currently simfactory requires that all required entries are
set (either in the [XXX] section for the machine or in [default]) even
for machines that are not used. ie. if allocation is required then the
user is pretty much forced to have one in [default] since otherwise
simfactory will abort (for all commands!) due to some exotic machine to
which the user has no access not having its allocation setting set.

Yours,
Roland

-- 
My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting
and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160921/a0946547/attachment.bin