galaxy-dev June 2014

galaxy-dev@lists.galaxyproject.org

64 participants
110 discussions

Packaging pycurl on toolshed
by Saket Choudhary 15 Aug '14

15 Aug '14

My attempt to 'package' pycurl on testtoolshed fails with the following error: src/pycurl.c: In function ‘do_multi_info_read’: src/pycurl.c:3549:15: warning: call to ‘_curl_easy_getinfo_err_string’ declared with attribute warning: curl_easy_getinfo expects a pointer to char * for this info [enabled by default] src/pycurl.c: In function ‘do_curl_getinfo’: src/pycurl.c:2888:19: warning: call to ‘_curl_easy_getinfo_err_curl_slist’ declared with attribute warning: curl_easy_getinfo expects a pointer to struct curl_slist * for this info [enabled by default] error: could not create '/usr/local/share/doc': Permission denied A local install worked fine. Is this because of libcurl-devel missing on toolshed instance?

3 6

bioblend problem trying to use run_tool function
by Olivia Doppelt 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

Dear Developers, I would like to use bioblend to export the result of a galaxy workflow. To do that, we want to use an implemented tool called export_data; which enables the copy of a result file from galaxy arborescence to a local directory which belong to the user making the analysis and the export. We tried to launch this tool using the run_tool function but it doesn't work. giOlivia.tools.run_tool(history_id='xxxxxxxxxxx',tool_id='yyyyyyyy/export_data/export/2.2',tool_inputs={'input':'id_data','name':"data"}) I get an error message which is very long and attached to this email. Please help me on that it is the final step of several ones using bioblend. Have a nice day, -- Olivia Doppelt-Azeroual, PhD Tel: 92 15 CIB - Institut Pasteur

4 10

Updated Freebayes Wrapper - Bugs
by Lance Parsons 16 Jul '14

16 Jul '14

Thanks for the major update of the Freebayes wrapper, excellent! I've run into two issues, however. 1) When using "set allelic scope" I get the following error: Fatal error: Exit code 1 () freebayes: unrecognized option `--min-repeat-length' did you mean --min-repeat-size ? 2) When using a vcf file as input I get the following error: Fatal error: Exit code 1 () open: No such file or directory [bgzf_check_bgzf] failed to open the file: input_variant_vcf.vcf.gz [tabix++] was bgzip used to compress this file? input_variant_vcf.vcf.gz I'd be happy to help resolve these. Is there a bitbucket repo somewhere to submit pull requests? -- Lance Parsons - Scientific Programmer 134 Carl C. Icahn Laboratory Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics Princeton University

3 2

Re: [galaxy-dev] Job execution order mixed-up
by Jean-Francois Payotte 04 Jul '14

04 Jul '14

Hi John, Thank you for your answer and for trying to help. This is greatly appreciated! I didn't really made any progress in tracking down this error, and hopefully this weird behaviour will not happen anymore with the November 4th, distribution. But here are my answers to your questions, in case it would ring a bell: Has this behaviour been reported with any other workflow? It has been reported with 2 different workflows as of now. These 2 workflows doesn't have anything in common, except that they are huge (one of them has 37 steps, producing a total of about 110 datasets). Are you running Galaxy as a single process or multiple processes? If multiple processes, how many web, handler and manager processes do you have and are they all on the same machine? We are running Galaxy in multiple processes with 5 web servers, 3 job handlers and no manager (I believe the manager was rendered obsolete in one of the latest Galaxy distributions). All these processes are run on the same machine. Have you made any modifications to Galaxy that could result in this behaviour? No. What is the value of track_jobs_in_database in your universe_wsgi.ini configuration file? We never touched this part of the configuration file and the line still reads: "#track_jobs_in_database = None". After reading your answer, I've decided to modify this line to: "track_jobs_in_database = True" Unfortunately, running one of the faulty workflows several times (5x), I noticed that one of them was still showing this strange behaviour where some jobs were executed before their inputs were ready. Do you think this issue could be related to the fact that we are using Galaxy with the multiple processes configuration? We implemented this configuration some time ago because some of our users were complaining about the slow responsiveness of the web interface. Would you recommend using Galaxy without the multiple processes configuration? (Lets say if updating to November 4th distribution doesn't fix this issue) I guess you are probably using the multiple processes configuration as well on Galaxy main? Thanks again for your help! Jean-François ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by John Chilton on Nov 09, 2013; 2:50pm Hello Jean-François, Have you made any progress tracking down this error? This appears very serious, but to tell you the truth I have no clue what could cause it. The distribution you are using is pretty old at this point I feel like if it was a bug the exhibited under relatively standard parameter combinations someone else would have reported it by now. Can you tell me some things: has this been reported with any other workflows? Is there anything special about this workflow? Can you rebuild the workflow and see if the error occurs again? Additional questions if the problem is not restricted to the workflow: are you running Galaxy as a single process or multiple processes? If multiple processes, how many web, handler, and manager processes do you have? Are they all on the same machine? Have you made any modifications to Galaxy that could result in this behavior? What is the value of track_jobs_in_database in your universe_wsgi.ini configuration file? -John On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Francois Payotte <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Galaxy mailing-list, Once again I come seeking for your help. I hope someone already had this issue or will have an idea on where to look to solve it. :) One of our users reported having workflows failing because some steps were executed before all their inputs where ready. You can find a screenshot attached, where we can see that step (42) "Sort on data 39" has been executed while step (39) is still waiting to run (gray box). This behaviour has been reproduced with at least two different Galaxy tools (one custom, and the sort tool which comes standard with Galaxy). This behaviour seems to be a little bit random, as running two times a workflow where this issue occurs, only one time did some steps were executed in the wrong order. I could be wrong, but I don't think this issue is grid-related as, from my understanding, Galaxy is not using SGE job dependencies functionality. I believe all jobs stays in some internal queues (within Galaxy) until all input files are ready, and only then the job is submitted to the cluster. Any help or any hint on what to look at to solve this issue would be greatly appreciated. We have updated our Galaxy instance to August 12th distribution on October 1st, and I believe we never experienced this issue before the update. Many thanks for your help, Jean-François

5 5

Run a tool's workflow one by one ?
by Pat-74100 04 Jul '14

04 Jul '14

Hi ! I have a big workflow and sometime when I launched it, I got an error message for some of my tools : unable to finish job. I think it's maybe Galaxy ran multiple job so I get this error message. I'm looking to run my workflow "step by step". For example this workflow: http://hcsvlab.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PsySoundTest1.png I'm looking to run Hilbert THEN FFT THEN SLM and no Hilbert, FFT and SLM at the same time. Is it possible to make a workflow which wait to finish a job before run an another job ? Thanks

5 11

Sort error while running Cuffdiff
by TD 01 Jul '14

01 Jul '14

Hi All -- I'm a novice when it comes to all things programming, but I recently installed my own instance of Galaxy because I'm working with very large datasets. Everything seems to be running OK, but when I attempt to run Cuffdiff (w/ ref. annotation and bias correction from UCSC genome) on output from Tophat2, I get the following error: "*Error: sort order of reads in BAMs must be the same*." I'm perplexed, because I downloaded this output from Tophat2 that I ran on the public server, before putting it through Cuffdiff on my local instance. When I tried running the same files (prior to download) in Cuffdiff on the public server, they ran just fine. So, why do the files run properly when I run them publicly, but not locally? Am I missing some metadata? Is my install not complete? Does the ordering of bam files change when you download them? I've had a hard time finding solutions, so any tips are greatly appreciated. Cheers!

2 1

How to access session cookies from within Galaxy tools?
by Melissa Cline 28 Jun '14

28 Jun '14

Hi folks, A few days ago, I asked how Galaxy maintains its knowledge of the user, even if the user hasn't logged in, such that two different anonymous users see their respective histories (and not each other's) when they return to Galaxy sometime later. I got the response that I was guessing I might get: session cookies. Next question: how can I access those cookies / that information from within my Galaxy tool? I remember seeing somewhere that there is an internal variable that gives me the username, if the user is logged in. What is that variable, and what is its value if the user has not logged in? Thanks! Melissa

1 0

Per-tool configuration
by Jan Kanis 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

I am writing a tool that should be configurable by the server admin. I am considering adding a configuration file, but where should such a file be placed? Is the tool-data directory the right place? Is there another standard way for per-tool configuration? Jan

3 13

fix for GATK2 wrapper from IUC
by Geert Vandeweyer 27 Jun '14

27 Jun '14

Hi, There is a missing parameter in the unified genotyer config from the iuc gatk2 wrapper: The following line should be added around line 204 (just before </expand></inputs>): <param name="sample_ploidy" type="integer" value="2" label="Sample Ploidy (number of allles). For tumour, set to 2x the number of expected subclones" help="-ploidy,--sample_ploidy" /> Without this line, activating the advanced analysis options causes the job preparation to fail because there is a reference to it in the <command> section gatk2 wrapper used: version : 8bcc13094767 hg tip: changeset: 3:2553f84b8174 tag: tip user: iuc date: Wed Feb 19 04:39:38 2014 -0500 summary: Uploaded Best, Geert -- Geert Vandeweyer, Ph.D. Department of Medical Genetics University of Antwerp Prins Boudewijnlaan 43 2650 Edegem Belgium Tel: +32 (0)3 275 97 56 E-mail: geert.vandeweyer(a)ua.ac.be http://ua.ac.be/cognitivegenetics http://www.linkedin.com/in/geertvandeweyer

2 1

setup_venv doesn't honour set_environment_for_install / installing lxml
by Jan Kanis 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

In a tool_dependency.xml file I want to install python package lxml in a virtual environment, as a tool I'm building needs it. The python lxml package requires the libxml2 tool dependency. I have added a set_environment_for_install action that refers to the libxml2 repository, but when python/pip tries to install lxml it fails, apparently because it can't find the required headers. This appears to be because the setup_virtualenv action does not include install environment variables. It seems to me that install environment variables should be sourced for every following action that can do nontrivial things, not just shell commands. Alternatively, am I trying to install lxml the wrong way, is there a better way? (I'm running on python 2.6) Jan

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

galaxy-dev June 2014