On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:21 PM, bjoern.gruening@googlemail.com <bjoern.gruening@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peter,
2014-07-31 10:57 GMT+02:00 Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com>:
Hi Dave,
You are right that on closer inspection I've mixed tool_dependencies.xml and repository_dependencies.xml *again*. Evidentially my mental model does not match Greg's here:
(*) I need to define a tool installation recipe for something not in the Tool Shed --> write an install script called tool_dependencies.xml
(*) I need to depend on a Python package by pointing at another repository in the Tool Shed --> repository_dependencies.xml
I might be wrong, but I think that also goes to tool_dependencies.xml
Correct, e.g. https://github.com/peterjc/pico_galaxy/tree/master/tools/seq_select_by_id Thanks!
(*) I need to depend on a datatype package by pointing at another repository in the Tool Shed --> repository_dependencies.xml
(*) I need to depend on a binary package by pointing at another repository in the Tool Shed --> repository_dependencies.xml ? No. You need tool_dependencies.xml for this too
As far as I understood, everything that is referenced in the tool.xml under the requirement section, needs to be in a tool_dependencies.xml file. Any other dependency are from the repository (data_types, data_manager, workflows ...).
Ciao, Bjoern
Sure, there is a logic here - but its a definition which I seem to still struggle with :(
But that aside, the test framework error here is completely unhelpful.
Why is there no error message about missing a dependency? Was there an error from running my tool which was not shown?
Thanks,
Peter
I'd still like to get a more explicit error from the test suite than "History in error state" though ;) Regards, Peter