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
Describe the feature you'd like
Currently, when using Processors such as SKLearnProcessor there is no way to specify where a local code= file should be stored in S3 when used in conjunction with a ProcessingStep. This can lead to clutter in S3 buckets, for example. The current behaviour places code in the default_bucket of a Sagemaker session like so:
A better user experience would be to allow the user to define exactly where the code should be uploaded. This allows users to group files together for each run. For example:
This should already be possible with the FrameworkProcessor and utilising the code_location= parameter but this seems to be ignored by the ProcessingStep.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Describe the feature you'd like
Currently, when using Processors such as
SKLearnProcessor
there is no way to specify where a localcode=
file should be stored in S3 when used in conjunction with aProcessingStep
. This can lead to clutter in S3 buckets, for example. The current behaviour places code in thedefault_bucket
of a Sagemaker session like so:s3://{default_bucket}/auto_generated_hash/input/code/preprocess.py
A better user experience would be to allow the user to define exactly where the code should be uploaded. This allows users to group files together for each run. For example:
s3://{specified_bucket}/{project_name}/PIPELINE_EXECUTION_ID/code/preprocess.py
s3://{specified_bucket}/{project_name}/PIPELINE_EXECUTION_ID/data/train.csv
s3://{specified_bucket}/{project_name}/PIPELINE_EXECUTION_ID/model/model.pkl
This should already be possible with the
FrameworkProcessor
and utilising thecode_location=
parameter but this seems to be ignored by theProcessingStep
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: