Creating a schedule creates a copy of the input file about jupyter-scheduler

[welcome]

Thank you for opening your first issue in this project! Engagement like this is essential for open source projects! 🤗

If you haven't done so already, check out Jupyter's Code of Conduct. Also, please try to follow the issue template as it helps other other community members to contribute more effectively.

You can meet the other Jovyans by joining our Discourse forum. There is also an intro thread there where you can stop by and say Hi! 👋

Welcome to the Jupyter community! 🎉

[andrii-i]

Hi @fabiopedrosa. Thank you for creating this issue.

I'm not entirely sure if this is to be expected,

but when I create a schedule for an input file, it uses a copy of that file, and any changes I make to the original file aren't reflected in the schedule file.

So that means every time I need to change something in the notebook, I need to delete the scheduled job and recreate it?

Yes, that is correct. Inputs are immutable: every time you create a schedule for an input file (job definition), jupyter scheduler server creates a snapshot of your input file and then runs it / creates jobs from the snapshot accordingly to the schedule. Therefore mutation of the original input notebook would not propagate, new job / job definition needs to be created based on the mutated notebook.

Closing this issue as answered, please feel free to ask follow-up questions if needed.

[fabiopedrosa]

@andrii-i Isn't it weird how that is not mentioned anywhere in the documentation?

It even says the opposite:

When the scheduler runs your notebook, it makes a copy of the input file
in https://jupyter-scheduler.readthedocs.io/en/latest/users/index.html

[andrii-i]

@fabiopedrosa thank you for pointing this out. I can see how that sentence does not give enough information about what exactly happens with a notebook during the job lifecycle and how it could be interpreted in a way that implies that every scheduled execution makes a copy of the input file notebook including mutations.

I've created issue #505 to track this documentation improvement opportunity. If you have ideas on which wording would work well / if wording proposed in the issue description works well, please feel free to comment in the issue.