I have a dagster job which runs fine and I have wr...
# ask-community
I have a dagster job which runs fine and I have wrapped it around a simple scheduler and I hit the error:
Copy code
Attempted to build memoized execution plan without providing a persistent DagsterInstance to create_execution_plan.
I set the tags as
return RunRequest(run_key=None, run_config=base_config, tags={"MEMOIZED_RUN_TAG": "true"})
I could not find much more in terms of docs. Does anyone have any idea how to proceed?
hey @Pankaj Daga - for what purpose are you setting the “MEMOIZED_RUN_TAG”?
I was getting this error and did a basic google search and this had come up. Sorry the quotes were a mistake but other than that, it still did not work with or without the tag
so if you dont have the tag at all it also doesnt work?
return RunRequest(run_key=None, run_config=base_config)
that tag should be entirely unnecessary, unless you’re doing some deprecated stuff with memoized jobs
My schedule code is as follows:
Copy code
    cron_schedule="10 * * * *",  
def train_schedule():
    with open(file_relative_path(__file__, "train_and_predict.yaml")) as f:
        bridge_config = yaml.safe_load(f)

    with open(file_relative_path(__file__, "dev__train.yaml")) as f:
        base_config = yaml.safe_load(f)


    return RunRequest(run_key=None, run_config=base_config, tags={MEMOIZED_RUN_TAG: "true"})
yeah, without it, I get the same error. Basically about memoization
huh that’s odd. either way, you shouldnt need that tag, so you can remove it. How are you running dagster?
also what version are you on?
on the clud. The version is 1.3.13
So turning the scheduler manually from the frontend
let me try again w/o the tag. one sec
ok - if that doesn’t work, can you share the code for the
job? feel free to dm it if needed
👍 1
Just FYI: The job runs fine. I can call the train_and_predict job without issues
the train_and_predict job? i see from the code that the schedule is called train_and_predict, but that the job it’s launching is called train__plus. just want to confirm that we’re talking about the same thing