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

Support for Enhancements to gxformat2 (part II) #6811

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 10, 2018

Conversation

jmchilton
Copy link
Member

Further extends #6807 and #6746 with more Format 2 workflow tweaks.

This:

  • Switches most format 2 workflows to use test_data separation and in keyword for connections introduced in Support for Enhancements to gxformat2. #6807.
  • Uses new id map based workflow input and output definitions.
  • Revs gxformat2 to allow these enhancements and to handle subworkflows, post job actions, and pause steps.

The id map based approach replaces arrays for inputs and outputs. Like CWL both are allowed, but also like CWL the newer id map based approach is probably preferred.

For an input definition, the following diff describes the change:

 inputs:
-  - id: input1
-    type: data_collection_input
+  input1:
+    type: collection
     collection_type: list

For simpler data inputs without extra modifiers, a simpler map can be used:

 inputs:
-  - id: input1
+  input1: data

For an output definition, the following diff describes the change:

 workflow_outputs:
-  - id: outer_output
-    source: second_cat#out_file1
+  outer_output:
+    outputSource: second_cat/out_file1

While not particularly more concise, it does bring the syntax inline with CWL - which uses outputSource on workflow steps instead of source.

@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ functools32==3.2.3.post2; python_version == '2.7'
future==0.16.0
futures==3.2.0; python_version == '2.6' or python_version == '2.7'
galaxy-sequence-utils==1.1.3
gxformat2==0.6.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Something unexpected is going on here, after merging #6807 there should be a merge conflict here, but there isn't ?!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR had that PRs exact commits - so they don't conflict. I changed this line twice - once in commits in that PR and again in a commit only in this PR.

Copy link
Member

@mvdbeek mvdbeek Oct 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alright, I was assuming the context in the github interface would at least show a bump from 0.3.1 to 0.6.0 and not show the commits that are already integrated -- although I guess this is a nice "feature" for stale PRs.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll rebase - I'm sure it will generate a cleaner diff against dev then.

@jmchilton jmchilton merged commit fb52755 into galaxyproject:dev Oct 10, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants