Thanks, I integrated parts of these snippets into our general dynamic_jobs function, and it works flawlessly. Best, Geert ________________________________________ Van: jmchilton(a)gmail.com [jmchilton(a)gmail.com] namens John Chilton [chilton(a)msi.umn.edu] Verzonden: donderdag 19 september 2013 19:42 Aan: Vandeweyer Geert CC: galaxy-dev(a)bx.psu.edu Onderwerp: Re: [galaxy-dev] pass user groups to dynamic job runner Feature request received. The following changeset demonstrates how one could implement this https://github.com/jmchilton/galaxy-central/commit/b500a24bc1aa94bef48db2... First step is to create a new dynamic job destination, this is demonstrated in job_conf.xml in the above changeset. This demonstrates the new style job_conf section - this will need to be adapted for the old style runners but is still doable. Then you will want to add a dynamic job runner rule that implements this logic. This is the file lib/galaxy/jobs/rules/license_checker.py. This will do what you asked, you can adjust the tools it targets and the message that gets displayed to the user pretty easily (right now it is just "No license, no tool"). There is no longer any need to display such tools to the user thanks to dynamic toolbox filters. This is that last file: lib/galaxy/tools/filters/license_filter.py. This will prevent any tool in the list 'LICENSED_TOOLS' from even being seen by unlicensed users. You do need to specify this filter is being used by adding the line: tool_filters = license_filter:has_license in the [app:main] section of universe_wsgi.ini. Hope this helps! -John On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Vandeweyer Geert <geert.vandeweyer(a)uantwerpen.be&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Nicola Soranzo <soranzo(a)crs4.it&gt; wrote: There is no way currently to pass information from the tool tag to the dynamic runner or to have the dynamic runner "pass" on making a decision in some way. It could potentially make sense to add these - but I would put forward a workaround that in my opinion is actually a little better: from galaxy.jobs.mapper import JobMappingException DEFAULT_DESTINATION_ID = "remoteCluster" LOCAL_DESTINATION_ID = "local" LOCAL_TOOLS = ['cat1'] def has_license(user, tool_id): user_group_assocs = user.groups or [] user_has_license = 'have_license' in [user_group_assoc.group.name for user_group_assoc in user_group_assocs] if not user_has_license: raise JobMappingException("No license, no tool!") if tool_id in LOCAL_TOOLS: return LOCAL_DESTINATION_ID else: return DEFAULT_DESTINATION_ID The problem here is that you sort of have special logic for 'cat1' in two places so what I would probably do is actually just eliminate the tool mappings all together in job_conf.xml and assign these tools destination using a default dynamic job runner. from galaxy.jobs.mapper import JobMappingException DEFAULT_DESTINATION_ID = "remoteCluster" LOCAL_DESTINATION_ID = "local" LOCAL_TOOLS = ['cat1'] REQUIRES_LICENSE = ['cat1', 'cat2'] def default_mapper(user, tool_id): if tool_id in REQUIRES_LICENSE: _check_license(user) if tool_id in LOCAL_TOOLS: return LOCAL_DESTINATION_ID else: return DEFAULT_DESTINATION_ID def _check_license(user): user_group_assocs = user.groups or [] user_has_license = 'have_license' in [user_group_assoc.group.name for user_group_assoc in user_group_assocs] if not user_has_license: raise JobMappingException("No license, no tool!") I don't use the dynamic job runner personally, but I am nevertheless going to declare it a best practice that at some point the complexity of the rules is such that it just makes sense to stop assigning any tools mappings in job_conf.xml and just use a default dynamic job destination for everything. Do you mean to suggest that merely documenting my contributions to Galaxy on my Twitter feed is insufficient? Hmm I don't know about that... Seriously though, Björn has implemented some extensions to dynamic toolbox filters that include this: https://bitbucket.org/galaxy/galaxy-central/pull-request/179/implement-th... I have added more options to Galaxy then I have documented in that file and I am always unsure whether to add them or not, the hesitation is that I think that file has too cluttered. I have missed really important modifications that should have been made because I didn't see them in that file. These filters may rise to the level that they belong in there, I am not certain, but they should certainly be documented at least on the wiki somewhere -John