Thanks @hilary.j.oliver !
You are right, as soon as I change my start point to
[scheduling]
initial cycle point = '20240101'
final cycle point = '20240114'
It validates the worflow without errors.
The problem is that we where searching a way of specifying a workflow running each Monday (or another specific day of the week), and this was the suggestion given in a previous discussion. And we would like to have a recurrence expression independent from the initial cycle point (so, not change the week to 46 if the initial cycle point is the 11 November).
Implementing your first workaround avoids the cycling graph error, but still the workflow doesn’t seems to run correctly. My worflow is now:
[scheduling]
initial cycle point = '20241111'
final cycle point = '20241118'
[[graph]]
R1 = """
init_vars => copy_data_init
"""
R/2024-W01-1/P7D ! ^ = """
FAMBUILD[^]:succeed-all => init_vars => run_model
"""
[runtime]
[[FAMBUILD]]
[[FAMRUN]]
[[ init_vars ]]
platform = belenos_login
script = """
echo "task init vars"
"""
[[copy_data_init]]
platform = belenos_login
script = """
echo "task copy_data_init"
"""
inherit = FAMBUILD
[[run_model]]
platform = belenos_login
script = """
echo "task run_model"
"""
inherit = FAMRUN
And the graph shows the workflow as intended
But when I play the workflow, first in the tui it shows a point that is not in the graph (20240101)
And then the flow gets stuck at the FAMBUILD, it never triggers the 2024/11/18 run.
Am I using Families in the wrong way?Or is still the same problem as before (i.e. the recurrence expression starts before the 1st cycle point)?
Many thanks in advance for your help!
Best,
Stella