John, thanks for following up. I myself abashedly sent out a followup mail
which maybe didn't get to this list (from the other
galaxy-user(a)lists.bx.pu.edu list). Yes indeed, I'd closed my one-liner
options tag. Problem fixed now.
From: "John Chilton" <chilton(a)msi.umn.edu>
Sent: 01 November 2013 09:48
Cc: "Galaxy Dev" <galaxy-dev(a)bx.psu.edu>, damion(a)learningpoint.ca
Subject: Re: [galaxy-dev] Tool XML form building bug with <options
Because this wasn't explicitly shown in your example e-mail, can you
verify for me that you are putting the filter elements inside of the
options element and not inside of the param element?
Moving this over to galaxy-dev(a)bx.psu.edu, the best list for tool design
questions. Best! Jen, Galaxy team
On 10/30/13 2:24 PM, damion(a)learningpoint.ca wrote:
> Has anyone run into this? I'm building a general-purpose filter
> control on my galaxy tool xml template for enabling numeric fields to
> be filtered by > < etc. parameters - in a user friendly way. I have a
> select list <para> driven by a data table:
> <param name="filter_column" type="select" label="Col">
> <options from_data_table="bccdc_blast_fields" />
> This works fine in building a list of fields to select from. Then I add
> <filter type="sort_by" column="1"/>
> <filter type="add_value" name="TESTESTTEST" value="WHWHWHW" />
> but nothing happens, sort remains incorrect and no extra value. I try
> these same filters on a previous <param> in form that is driven
> by <options from_file="bccdc_blast_bins.loc"> and they work fine.
> I also tried applying <fiilter type="static_value" ...> to no avail on
> from_data_table options tag, but from from_file options, no problem.
> So I start to think there's a bug whereby NO filters work on <options
> from_data_table="bccdc_blast_fields" /> input? I've surveyed the
> python code, but can't see a decision point there in which
> from_data_table work vs from_file choice is made; is it in another
> script file?
> I'm using a BioLinux 2012 install that includes Galaxy.
> Help appreciated!
> Damion Dooley
> BC Centre for Disease Control
> Vancouver, BC
> The Galaxy User list should be used for the discussion of
> Galaxy analysis and other features on the public server
> at usegalaxy.org. Please keep all replies on the list by
> using "reply all" in your mail client. For discussion of
> local Galaxy instances and the Galaxy source code, please
> use the Galaxy Development list:
> To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists,
> please use the interface at:
> To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm working with a number of people in my department to develop a single
workflow that will be used for a course we teach. So far I've found that
"sharing" a workflow with individual users/roles isn't very optimal.
They email me with changes they'd like to happen, or they create their
own copies which immediately branch off and don't help everyone else who
might need them.
As such, I'd like to propose changes and would like community feedback
on my proposed changes so when I create the trello card/maybe try my
hand at implementing them, they aren't completely specific to my use case.
In my mind, the 'optimal' version of managing workflows would be
something along the following lines:
- - workflows can be shared as "write" or "read only" with multiple
- This would allow there to be a single copy of a workflow in cases
where multiple people might make changes to a single workflow
- For "read only", this allows the previous/traditional model of
sharing a workflow and the receiver being able to run it as is, or to
copy and modify it.
For my case at least, realtime multiple person editing is not needed. If
a banner shows up which reads "someone started editing before you,
either ask them to save + leave or save as a copy" would work in my case.
- - workflows are treated as VCS repositories
- Note that full merge/branching probably not really necessary for this
case (that would be really nice, but probably too much of a nightmare to
- - You can see previous iterations of workflows.
- - Workflows can be "owned" by either a user or a role
- users could create a workflow and transfer ownership to a role
- role owned workflows are delete-able (or maybe require some X% of
users in that role to confirmation deletion?)
- This would sort of work like a group owned VCS repository, where
multiple users can create workflows of interest to a group of people
(role) and have them, by default, be available.
Anyone have input on this proposal?
Center for Phage Technology
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Is there any desire to create a way in galaxy to browse local directories on the galaxy server itself? Not the client machine running the web browwser, but the machine on which galaxy is running. I've created a tool that allows a user to upload a single file from their own personal directory on the galaxy server into galaxy directly, without going through Apache. However, this is very limiting. It would be very helpful to be able to browse directories that are deemed accessible to the galaxy user, and before I begin trying to develop anything I'd like to know if there is any support for such a feature.
Helix Systems Staff
National Institutes of Health
Recently I have updated our test galaxy server in order to check some new features like user email activation using emails. I saw that in the admin page
http://wiki.galaxyproject.org/Admin/UserAccounts . But I download the last version and the conf values that are supose to be in the universe_wsgi.ini are not present ( at least in the sample file).
Do you know if this is a future feature or there is anything I need to do for testing it?
thanks everyone for your help