Re: Auto-create processe's output-path?

[Olivier Dion]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2022, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> That said: I don’t know if we should have OUTPUT-PATH at all.  It
> doesn’t seem to do much other than setting the “out” environment
> variable.  It seems to me that this is a vestigal remnant from simpler
> times.
>
> It is also used in PROCESS-OUTPUTS as a shared prefix for all declared
> outputs.  Is this really useful enough to justify respecting it in
> PROCESS-OUTPUTS?  Does it even work correctly with caching and
> containerization?
>
> (Maybe we should just remove it…?)

I don't mind.  I use it avoid repeating the prefix but I think that a
concept of `working directory' would probably be better.  Maybe an
example of mine would explain better.

I have a pipeline of processes.  These are all templated and I generate
hundreds of these pipelines with different parameters.  Everything is
auto-connected with inputs/outputs matching.  What is important to me is
that all inputs/outputs of a pipeline are separated in different
directories.
 
Setting a working directory that is parameterizable for the processes
would do this cleanly and I believe would also work in a containerized
environment.  I'm not sure what would be the implication for the
caching, but I belive that it does not impact it.

>> Would it be possible for GWL to do this instead?
>
> I guess we could have the GWL do this, but in some cases it may not be
> desirable.  There are tools that get all offended when the parent
> directory of their output files already exists.

Agree.

-- 
Olivier Dion
oldiob.dev