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

support output from cwltool's `--pack` #103

Closed
mr-c opened this Issue May 8, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@mr-c
Member

mr-c commented May 8, 2017

@hmenager

This comment has been minimized.

Member

hmenager commented Jun 8, 2017

+1 that would be really helpful!

@MarkRobbo

This comment has been minimized.

Member

MarkRobbo commented Aug 11, 2017

Support for subworkflows has improved in v1.1.0 due to cwltool support.

It is now a lot easier for us to implement visualisation of subworkflows in their own clusters in-place if the workflow is packed.

@mr-c

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mr-c commented Aug 11, 2017

@MarkRobbo Or worse case, you can --pack it for the user?

@MarkRobbo

This comment has been minimized.

Member

MarkRobbo commented Aug 14, 2017

@mr-c The problem is with the workflows being packed rather than the opposite.

It is then difficult to give each page a unique URL as # cannot be used due to those parameters not being passed to the server.

Currently the application assumes one URL refers to one cwl file, which is not the case with packed workflows. Though there is room for support in the code if we can come up with a strategy for the URLs.

@mr-c

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mr-c commented Aug 14, 2017

@MarkRobbo Why not URL encode the hash as %23?

@MarkRobbo

This comment has been minimized.

Member

MarkRobbo commented Aug 14, 2017

@mr-c that's possible and would work in the normal application flow, but users manually typing # into the browser to navigate to different subworkflows would not have it URL encoded which could make that confusing.

Edit: I've also done some quick testing on this with some weird behaviour on the part of the browsers - not sure if this would work as an approach

@mr-c

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mr-c commented Aug 14, 2017

Can't you detect the presence of an unescaped hash and convert appropriately if it's a valid sub document?

@MarkRobbo

This comment has been minimized.

Member

MarkRobbo commented Aug 14, 2017

@mr-c The only way to read them would be on the client side - I suppose it may be possible having loaded the page to redirect you to the escaped hash page using Javascript, but that is a little messy and there's no way to check if it actually exists at that point without an AJAX call.

As they are used for anchors etc, that information is not sent to the server at all.

@mr-c

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mr-c commented Aug 14, 2017

It is your call -- I think some messy code is often worth a better user experience.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment