FWIW It’s also listed in other places @<1523704157695905792:profile|VivaciousBadger56> , e.g. None says:

In order to make sure we also automatically upload the model snapshot (instead of saving its local path), we need to pass a storage location for the model files to be uploaded to.
For example, upload all snapshots to an S3 bucket…

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73>

Either? 🙂

Yes, you're correct, I misread the exception.
Maybe it hasn't completed uploading? At least for Datasets one needs to explicitly wait IIRC

I wouldn't put past ClearML automation (a lot of stuff depend on certain suffixes), but I don't think that's the case here hmm

I have already been trying to contribute (have three pull requests), but honestly I feel it is a bit weird, that I need to update a documentation about something I do not understand, while I actually try to evaluate if ClearML is the right tool for our company...

I can only say I’ve found ClearML to be very helpful, even given the documentation issue.
I think they’ve been working on upgrading it for a while, hopefully something new comes out soon.
Maybe @<1523701205467926528:profile|AgitatedDove14> has further info 🙂

@<1523704157695905792:profile|VivaciousBadger56> regrading: None
Is this a discussion or PR ?
(general ranting is saved for our slack channel 🙂 )

Well you could start by setting the output_uri to True in Task.init .

@<1523704157695905792:profile|VivaciousBadger56> I'm not sure I'm following you - is the issue not being able to upload to the ClearML server or to load the downloaded file?

But we do use S3

"Messy" is putting it nicely.

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : Thanks, but it does not mention the File Storage of "ClearML Hosted Server".

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : I do not get this impression, because during update_weights I get the message

2023-02-21 13:54:49,185 - clearml.model - INFO - No output storage destination defined, registering local model C:\Users..._Demodaten_FF_2023-02-21_13-53-51.624362.model

But, I guess @<1523701070390366208:profile|CostlyOstrich36> wrote that in a different chat, right?

Heh, good @<1523704157695905792:profile|VivaciousBadger56> 😁
I was just repeating what @<1523701070390366208:profile|CostlyOstrich36> suggested, credits to him

Heh, well, John wrote that in the first reply in this thread 🙂
And in Task.init main documentation page (nowhere near the code), it says the following -

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : I do not see any way to download the model manually from the web app either. All I see is the link to the file on my harddrive (see shreenshot).

The second process says there is not file at all. I think, all that happened is that the update_weights only uploaded the location of the .zip file (which we denote as a .model file) on my harddrive, but not the file itself.

We have the following, works fine (we also use internal zip packaging for our models):

model = OutputModel(task=self.task, name=self.job_name, tags=kwargs.get('tags', self.task.get_tags()), framework=framework)
model.connect(task=self.task, name=self.job_name)
model.update_weights(weights_filename=cc_model.save())

We'll try to add referenced to that in other places as well 👍

FWIW, we prefer to set it in the agent’s configuration file, then it’s all automatic

By the way, output_uri is also documented as part of the Task.init() docstring ( None )

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : From which URL is your most recent screenshot?

Unbelievable! That worked.

🙂

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : I see. I did not make the connection that output_uri=True is what I was missing. I thought this was the default. But the default is actually "None", which is different than "True".

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : How do you figure? In the past, my colleagues and I just shared the .zip file via email / MS Teams and it worked. So I don't think so.

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> : If I do, what should I configure how?

@<1523701087100473344:profile|SuccessfulKoala55> Also, I think that - in this case, but also in other cases - the issue is not just the documentation, but also the design of the SDK.

I am not sure if it the fact the name of the file ends with .model is an issue - but that would be somewhat crazy design...