Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor samplesheet #228

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jan 26, 2022
Merged

Refactor samplesheet #228

merged 15 commits into from
Jan 26, 2022

Conversation

evanroyrees
Copy link
Collaborator

Now samplesheet takes input cov_from_assembly instead of cov_from_contig_headers so in the future, other assembler contig header parsers may be easily added.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 25, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #228 (76b9d28) into dev (6579f90) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 76b9d28 differs from pull request most recent head b898249. Consider uploading reports for the commit b898249 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev     #228   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   27.36%   27.36%           
=======================================
  Files          45       45           
  Lines        5314     5314           
=======================================
  Hits         1454     1454           
  Misses       3860     3860           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 27.36% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.


Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6579f90...b898249. Read the comment docs.

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ process ALIGN_READS {
path "*.version.txt" , emit: version

when:
!meta.cov_from_spades
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think these when control flows should be handled within the calling workflow/subworkflow because I don't think it's unreasonable to think these modules might be reused for other subworkflows in the future. It also will probably allow defining that flow in a single place

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@evanroyrees evanroyrees Jan 26, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. Although I'm not sure the when directive can be used within a workflow definition

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@evanroyrees evanroyrees merged commit d9a891d into dev Jan 26, 2022
@evanroyrees evanroyrees deleted the refactor-samplesheet branch January 26, 2022 19:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants