You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using GCSFileSystem, I would expect passing in cache_timeout = 0 to result in no caching, since according to the docs: Set cache_timeout <= 0 for no caching, None for no cache expiration. Yet when cache_timeout = 0, self.cache_timeout is set to None and caching is being used.
OK, so the docstring and the functionality need to be brought into line - can you please make the PR? Ideally we should have the same behaviour between implementations, so the change might be in fsspec.dircache . I don't mind which sentinel value means "no caching", especially since we also have use_listings_cache. I suppose an expiry time of 0 could be understood as no caching, or as no expiry (i.e., use cache and never make stale).
When using
GCSFileSystem
, I would expect passing incache_timeout = 0
to result in no caching, since according to the docs:Set cache_timeout <= 0 for no caching, None for no cache expiration.
Yet whencache_timeout = 0
,self.cache_timeout
is set toNone
and caching is being used.When
cache_timeout = 0
,self.cache_timeout = cache_timeout or kwargs.pop("listings_expiry_time", None)
is evaluating toNone
, since the value of0
is falsy. Currently circumventing this by passing incache_timeout = -1
, but docs state that a value of0
should be supported and indicate no caching.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: