On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peter, I think I did not explain myself well. I meant that if I have a tool that takes multiple file paths and outputs multiple Galaxy datasets to the history, would this tool be workflow compatible, meaning capable of being a part of any workflow? From the behaviour I am getting now I am assuming it isn't but I just wanted to confirm that this isn't supported functionality.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Katherine,
Are you asking about compatibility staying on the same Galaxy instance, or the harder problem of compatibility sharing workflows between Galaxy servers?
Taking data from input Galaxy datasets should be fine, anything else may not be portable. Even the relatively simple case of using datafiles referenced via an example.loc file (e.g. BLAST databases) would require the entries in the example.loc file be synchronised between Galaxy instances, and the associated data files too.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Katherine Beaulieu katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone, Would anyone be able to tell me the conditions which would make a tool non-workflow compatible? I have a tool that imports files from a third
party
application and auto-detects the file format. There is also the option
to
upload multiple files at once so the tool always uploads at least two
files.
From what I have described can anyone see why this tool would not be
able to
send one of its files to the next tool in the chain, ex. a text
manipulation
tool? Thanks, Katherine
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
HI Katherine:
Multi-input/output should work fine…
You could have a look at the bowtie wrappers for an example.
It takes up to 2 fastq files and a reference. I can output a few files (unmapped, mapped, etc)
Brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Peter, I think I did not explain myself well. I meant that if I have a tool that takes multiple file paths and outputs multiple Galaxy datasets to the history, would this tool be workflow compatible, meaning capable of being a part of any workflow? From the behaviour I am getting now I am assuming it isn't but I just wanted to confirm that this isn't supported functionality.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock@googlemail.commailto:p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com> wrote: Hi Katherine,
Are you asking about compatibility staying on the same Galaxy instance, or the harder problem of compatibility sharing workflows between Galaxy servers?
Taking data from input Galaxy datasets should be fine, anything else may not be portable. Even the relatively simple case of using datafiles referenced via an example.loc file (e.g. BLAST databases) would require the entries in the example.loc file be synchronised between Galaxy instances, and the associated data files too.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone, Would anyone be able to tell me the conditions which would make a tool non-workflow compatible? I have a tool that imports files from a third party application and auto-detects the file format. There is also the option to upload multiple files at once so the tool always uploads at least two files. From what I have described can anyone see why this tool would not be able to send one of its files to the next tool in the chain, ex. a text manipulation tool? Thanks, Katherine
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
Hi Brad, What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example. Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Langhorst, Brad Langhorst@neb.com wrote:
HI Katherine:
Multi-input/output should work fine…
You could have a look at the bowtie wrappers for an example.
It takes up to 2 fastq files and a reference. I can output a few files (unmapped, mapped, etc)
Brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peter, I think I did not explain myself well. I meant that if I have a tool that takes multiple file paths and outputs multiple Galaxy datasets to the history, would this tool be workflow compatible, meaning capable of being a part of any workflow? From the behaviour I am getting now I am assuming it isn't but I just wanted to confirm that this isn't supported functionality.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Katherine,
Are you asking about compatibility staying on the same Galaxy instance, or the harder problem of compatibility sharing workflows between Galaxy servers?
Taking data from input Galaxy datasets should be fine, anything else may not be portable. Even the relatively simple case of using datafiles referenced via an example.loc file (e.g. BLAST databases) would require the entries in the example.loc file be synchronised between Galaxy instances, and the associated data files too.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Katherine Beaulieu katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone, Would anyone be able to tell me the conditions which would make a tool non-workflow compatible? I have a tool that imports files from a third
party
application and auto-detects the file format. There is also the option
to
upload multiple files at once so the tool always uploads at least two
files.
From what I have described can anyone see why this tool would not be
able to
send one of its files to the next tool in the chain, ex. a text
manipulation
tool? Thanks, Katherine
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
Hi Katherine:
I’d recommend not having users type in paths if at all possible (they will make frustrating mistakes). If there is a selection of these maybe consider turining them into dropdown lists.
Either way, these would be no different than e.g. user specified downsampling amounts. or library names, etc. I have tools that accept many of these.
Brad
— Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example.
Hi Brad, So with multiple selection dropdown lists this is possible? Do you have an example of a tool that can do this? Would it be possible to see an example of the tools you are talking about? Thanks for the help! Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Langhorst, Brad Langhorst@neb.com wrote:
Hi Katherine:
I’d recommend not having users type in paths if at all possible (they will make frustrating mistakes). If there is a selection of these maybe consider turining them into dropdown lists.
Either way, these would be no different than e.g. user specified downsampling amounts. or library names, etc. I have tools that accept many of these.
Brad
— Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example.
Hi:
Yes - let’s say you have hard coded paths… you could put those into a select list pretty easily (just have the paths embedded like the bowtie wrapper does the paired-end vs. single-end select list).
You might also want to consider a table lookup though. The bowtie wrapper does that for reference genomes. You can make your own lookup table to refer to whatever files you want, which would allow you to update paths without installing new version of the tool.
brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brad, So with multiple selection dropdown lists this is possible? Do you have an example of a tool that can do this? Would it be possible to see an example of the tools you are talking about? Thanks for the help! Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Langhorst, Brad <Langhorst@neb.commailto:Langhorst@neb.com> wrote: Hi Katherine:
I’d recommend not having users type in paths if at all possible (they will make frustrating mistakes). If there is a selection of these maybe consider turining them into dropdown lists.
Either way, these would be no different than e.g. user specified downsampling amounts. or library names, etc. I have tools that accept many of these.
Brad
— Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example.
Hmm, unfortunately the paths have to be dynamically generated because this is basically just an upload tool, but for another filesystem on your computer other than the default (like Finder for Mac for example), in my case 'iRODS', so its not really feasible to have something like a file browser or to hard code the paths.
Although I do have a dynamic select list working at the moment and do get multiple files outputted into my history, when I try to use one of the files I uploaded, in a workflow, I get this error:
File '/home/katie/galaxy/lib/galaxy/workflow/run.py', line 308 in replacement_for_connection
raise Exception( message )
Exception: Workflow evaluation problem - failed to find output_name __new_primary_file_output|foo.txt__ in step_outputs {'output': <galaxy.model.HistoryDatasetAssociation object at 0x7f976ecbb410>}
And when I look in the database (table workflow_step_connection) every other normal file's output_name is the name of the output variable from the tool config file, for example if the parameter is <output name=output1... then that is the output_name for the file resulting from that tool execution. So why is it giving me something strange like __new_primary_file_output|foo.txt__ when the file comes from a tool execution where multiple files were outputted to the history.
Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Langhorst, Brad Langhorst@neb.com wrote:
Hi:
Yes - let’s say you have hard coded paths… you could put those into a select list pretty easily (just have the paths embedded like the bowtie wrapper does the paired-end vs. single-end select list).
You might also want to consider a table lookup though. The bowtie wrapper does that for reference genomes. You can make your own lookup table to refer to whatever files you want, which would allow you to update paths without installing new version of the tool.
brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brad, So with multiple selection dropdown lists this is possible? Do you have an example of a tool that can do this? Would it be possible to see an example of the tools you are talking about? Thanks for the help! Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Langhorst, Brad Langhorst@neb.com wrote:
Hi Katherine:
I’d recommend not having users type in paths if at all possible (they will make frustrating mistakes). If there is a selection of these maybe consider turining them into dropdown lists.
Either way, these would be no different than e.g. user specified downsampling amounts. or library names, etc. I have tools that accept many of these.
Brad
— Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Katherine Beaulieu < katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example.
Hi Katherine:
This is outside my experience… but I wonder if you could try using a formulaic name for the output (output1, output2, output3, output4) rather than base the output name on the input file’s name.
Maybe someone else has some experience with something like this?
Brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, unfortunately the paths have to be dynamically generated because this is basically just an upload tool, but for another filesystem on your computer other than the default (like Finder for Mac for example), in my case 'iRODS', so its not really feasible to have something like a file browser or to hard code the paths.
Although I do have a dynamic select list working at the moment and do get multiple files outputted into my history, when I try to use one of the files I uploaded, in a workflow, I get this error:
File '/home/katie/galaxy/lib/galaxy/workflow/run.py', line 308 in replacement_for_connection
raise Exception( message )
Exception: Workflow evaluation problem - failed to find output_name __new_primary_file_output|foo.txt__ in step_outputs {'output': <galaxy.model.HistoryDatasetAssociation object at 0x7f976ecbb410>}
And when I look in the database (table workflow_step_connection) every other normal file's output_name is the name of the output variable from the tool config file, for example if the parameter is <output name=output1... then that is the output_name for the file resulting from that tool execution. So why is it giving me something strange like __new_primary_file_output|foo.txt__ when the file comes from a tool execution where multiple files were outputted to the history.
Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Langhorst, Brad <Langhorst@neb.commailto:Langhorst@neb.com> wrote: Hi:
Yes - let’s say you have hard coded paths… you could put those into a select list pretty easily (just have the paths embedded like the bowtie wrapper does the paired-end vs. single-end select list).
You might also want to consider a table lookup though. The bowtie wrapper does that for reference genomes. You can make your own lookup table to refer to whatever files you want, which would allow you to update paths without installing new version of the tool.
brad — Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brad, So with multiple selection dropdown lists this is possible? Do you have an example of a tool that can do this? Would it be possible to see an example of the tools you are talking about? Thanks for the help! Katherine
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Langhorst, Brad <Langhorst@neb.commailto:Langhorst@neb.com> wrote: Hi Katherine:
I’d recommend not having users type in paths if at all possible (they will make frustrating mistakes). If there is a selection of these maybe consider turining them into dropdown lists.
Either way, these would be no different than e.g. user specified downsampling amounts. or library names, etc. I have tools that accept many of these.
Brad
— Brad Langhorst, Ph.D. Development Scientist New England Biolabs
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Katherine Beaulieu <katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.commailto:katherine.beaulieu014@gmail.com> wrote:
What if its multiple file paths that the user types in rather than actual files, which makes it so the tool can't be executed in batch mode, would it still be workflow compatible at that point? Thanks for pointing me to the Bowtie wrappers as an example.
galaxy-dev@lists.galaxyproject.org
-
Katherine Beaulieu -
Langhorst, Brad