Linting fixes #64
Linting fixes #64
Conversation
mvdbeek
force-pushed
the
linting_fixes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4fe9d3e
to
1403849
Compare
These are the only fields allowed in the schema and should be sufficient to restore the position.
| @@ -56,6 +59,9 @@ def from_galaxy_native(native_workflow_dict, tool_interface=None, json_wrapper=F | |||
|
|
|||
| # For each step, rebuild the form and encode the state | |||
| for step in native_steps.values(): | |||
| position = prune_position(step) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having feature parity between .ga and Format 2 as the goal, can we confidently drop the other position fields (bottom, height, right, width, x, y) that .ga files contain for subworkflows?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did I miss a spot for subworkflows, or is the question if it's safe to drop the the remaining position elements ? Or that we should drop them from editor export altogether ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did I miss a spot for subworkflows
It seems that .ga files have the extra position fields only for subworkflows, not tools or inputs.
or is the question if it's safe to drop the the remaining position elements ? Or that we should drop them from editor export altogether?
My question is if these fields (bottom, height, right, width, x, y) are used by Galaxy, so if we drop them when converting to Format 2 here we are losing information (and so feature parity between the 2 formats).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that .ga files have the extra
positionfields only for subworkflows, not tools or inputs.
I haven't seen this, the position field should be independent of the step type.
My question is if these fields (bottom, height, right, width, x, y) are used by Galaxy, so if we drop them when converting to Format 2 here we are losing information (and so feature parity between the 2 formats).
Re-upload of a round-tripped workflow maintains the coordinates, but I've asked @jmchilton and @guerler for confirmation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't seen this, the position field should be independent of the step type.
https://github.com/galaxyproject/SARS-CoV-2/blob/master/genomics/deploy/workflows/Genomics-4-All-in-one-subworkflow.ga has a mix of both styles, but it doesn't seem to depend on whether it's subworkflow or not. It might have to do on which version of Galaxy the workflow was defined ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@guerler confirmed that we only need left and top. I think that we store the the other values is probably a bug on the Galaxy side.
Co-authored-by: Nicola Soranzo <nicola.soranzo@gmail.com>
I mean we put other data we don't reuse in the file. |
Fixes a bunch of things in #61