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

Added ports to the scatter and enable usage of variables into the scatter #25

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 18, 2017

Conversation

daniilsavchuk
Copy link
Collaborator

@daniilsavchuk daniilsavchuk commented May 14, 2017

General idea

Since PR#20 was been merged it become possible to have a connections and ports in the scatter (if/while). This possibility make us able to propose solution for the following issues: #9 , #11 , #15 , and rewrite temporary fix for #16 , #21 . Currently pipeline-builder does not support the inputs in scatter(if/while) and does not show the scatter iteration item as a port. This pull request implements this features and hopefully fixes some bugs ( #15 , #16 , #21 ).

In this PR it will look like:
GroupInputs

Changes

  • Removed variable usege limitation for scatter
  • Enabled ports for scatter, if, while
  • Enabled connections between scatter/if/while with other things
  • Updated WDL generator code
  • Updated tests due to the new scatter/if/while functionality.

Scripts affected

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-1.1%) to 94.142% when pulling 51d85de on feature/step-inputs into a0625c8 on dev.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 95.847% when pulling 65f1f00 on feature/step-inputs into a0625c8 on dev.

Copy link
Contributor

@voidest voidest left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems fine. I just have a couple of questions here.

if (!(config instanceof Action)) {
config.canHavePorts = false;
} else {
if (config instanceof Action) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we still unable to create groups from actions?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@daniilsavchuk daniilsavchuk May 15, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@voidest currently it looks like there are no sense to create groups from actions. Let me leave it for a while.

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ describe('model/Group', () => {
});

it('throws error when try to create with ports', () => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we rename/remove this test?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for the notisance!

I will correct the name of this test

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 95.847% when pulling 5bf2819 on feature/step-inputs into a0625c8 on dev.

@sidoruka sidoruka reopened this May 18, 2017
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 95.847% when pulling 338318d on feature/step-inputs into f763347 on dev.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 95.847% when pulling 338318d on feature/step-inputs into f763347 on dev.

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.

4 participants