Hello
Apologies as this seems to be quite a frequent question (and I may have missed something) however: are the tool tests being executed on the main or test toolsheds at the moment?
The most recent tests results that I can find for any of the tools I've uploaded is the 29th January. I've also looked at a couple of tools from other users and the situation appears to be the same (at least in those cases).
Thanks for your help!
Best wishes
Peter
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello
Apologies as this seems to be quite a frequent question (and I may have missed something) however: are the tool tests being executed on the main or test toolsheds at the moment?
The most recent tests results that I can find for any of the tools I've uploaded is the 29th January. I've also looked at a couple of tools from other users and the situation appears to be the same (at least in those cases).
Thanks for your help!
Best wishes
Peter
Hi Peter B.,
You're probably seeing some of my emails on this topic - there used to be a nightly test run, then dropped to every second night, but that Galaxy team have been having trouble with the system.
On a positive note, at least some tools are getting tested. This is one I updated earlier this month on 2015-03-06, but didn't include all the named test files - so the test failed:
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs Automated test environment Time tested: 2015-03-16 15:15:33 ... One or more test files are missing for tool sample_seqs: MID4_GLZRM4E04_rnd30.sff
I updated this on the test tool shed on 2015-03-16 but it has yet to be tested there:
https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
For now I would urge you to include as much local testing as you can, and explore setting up another testing service like TravisCI or Jenkins for your tool development. e.g.
http://blastedbio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/using-travis-ci-for-testing-galaxy-...
Note that John's plameno tool looks set to become extremely useful for both running the tests, and other sanity checking with its "lint" command (and I plan to use this for my TravisCI test setup one day):
https://github.com/galaxyproject/planemo
Peter C.
Hello Peter C.
Thanks for your comments and advice Ironically after I sent that email the tests for the next tool I looked at in the toolshed had been run in the past couple of days.
I'm interested because I've got a couple of tools that seem to work okay when I run the tests locally, but are reported as failing on the toolshed, and I wanted to see if I'd addressed the issue for one of them by updating the tool dependencies.
(As an aside I'd also assumed that passing tests is one of the conditions for the tool to be marked as "verified", but maybe that's not the case?)
However as you say, more testing locally seems to be a good way to go - thanks for your suggestions. I looked at planemo briefly a while ago and it looked good. The other issue I've had with testing is actually testing tool installation (i.e. tool_dependencies.xml) - I recall that planemo didn't deal with that side of things, so I had to set up the environment for the tests manually.
Thanks again for your advice and the links, I will investigate trying to set up a local solution (including some CI testing!).
Best wishes
Peter
On 17/03/15 13:40, Peter Cock wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello
Apologies as this seems to be quite a frequent question (and I may have missed something) however: are the tool tests being executed on the main or test toolsheds at the moment?
The most recent tests results that I can find for any of the tools I've uploaded is the 29th January. I've also looked at a couple of tools from other users and the situation appears to be the same (at least in those cases).
Thanks for your help!
Best wishes
Peter
Hi Peter B.,
You're probably seeing some of my emails on this topic - there used to be a nightly test run, then dropped to every second night, but that Galaxy team have been having trouble with the system.
On a positive note, at least some tools are getting tested. This is one I updated earlier this month on 2015-03-06, but didn't include all the named test files - so the test failed:
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs Automated test environment Time tested: 2015-03-16 15:15:33 ... One or more test files are missing for tool sample_seqs: MID4_GLZRM4E04_rnd30.sff
I updated this on the test tool shed on 2015-03-16 but it has yet to be tested there:
https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
For now I would urge you to include as much local testing as you can, and explore setting up another testing service like TravisCI or Jenkins for your tool development. e.g.
http://blastedbio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/using-travis-ci-for-testing-galaxy-...
Note that John's plameno tool looks set to become extremely useful for both running the tests, and other sanity checking with its "lint" command (and I plan to use this for my TravisCI test setup one day):
https://github.com/galaxyproject/planemo
Peter C.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello Peter C.
Thanks for your comments and advice Ironically after I sent that email the tests for the next tool I looked at in the toolshed had been run in the past couple of days.
That's good. I can also confirm that the Test Tool Shed example I gave was tested overnight, although it looks like a novel failure: https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
I'm interested because I've got a couple of tools that seem to work okay when I run the tests locally, but are reported as failing on the toolshed, and I wanted to see if I'd addressed the issue for one of them by updating the tool dependencies.
I suggest asking on this mailing list, posting the shareable Tool Shed URL and a copy of the error message. Hopefully it will be a simple issue (forgetting a test file is my most common mistake), or it may be that another tool author has seen the same error (which can happen due to problems in Galaxy itself).
(As an aside I'd also assumed that passing tests is one of the conditions for the tool to be marked as "verified", but maybe that's not the case?)
I think there is still a human involved, but passing tests is expected for a "verified" tool.
However as you say, more testing locally seems to be a good way to go - thanks for your suggestions. I looked at planemo briefly a while ago and it looked good. The other issue I've had with testing is actually testing tool installation (i.e. tool_dependencies.xml) - I recall that planemo didn't deal with that side of things, so I had to set up the environment for the tests manually.
There is some work on tool_dependencies.xml ongoing within planemo, John Chilton would be the person to ask (CC'd directly).
Thanks again for your advice and the links, I will investigate trying to set up a local solution (including some CI testing!).
This is something where using planemo ought to be very useful - for now I still do my local testing with a test Galaxy instance via:
$ ./run_tests.sh -id my_tool_id
Peter
Gentlemen,
The issue with the nightly testing was due to a stalled test run blocking subsequent tests. I've cleared out that blockage and a manual test run appears to have completed successfully, as should future automated test runs. As always, feel free to let us know if you encounter any additional inexplicable behavior.
--Dave B.
On 03/18/2015 07:00 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello Peter C.
Thanks for your comments and advice Ironically after I sent that email the tests for the next tool I looked at in the toolshed had been run in the past couple of days.
That's good. I can also confirm that the Test Tool Shed example I gave was tested overnight, although it looks like a novel failure: https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
I'm interested because I've got a couple of tools that seem to work okay when I run the tests locally, but are reported as failing on the toolshed, and I wanted to see if I'd addressed the issue for one of them by updating the tool dependencies.
I suggest asking on this mailing list, posting the shareable Tool Shed URL and a copy of the error message. Hopefully it will be a simple issue (forgetting a test file is my most common mistake), or it may be that another tool author has seen the same error (which can happen due to problems in Galaxy itself).
(As an aside I'd also assumed that passing tests is one of the conditions for the tool to be marked as "verified", but maybe that's not the case?)
I think there is still a human involved, but passing tests is expected for a "verified" tool.
However as you say, more testing locally seems to be a good way to go - thanks for your suggestions. I looked at planemo briefly a while ago and it looked good. The other issue I've had with testing is actually testing tool installation (i.e. tool_dependencies.xml) - I recall that planemo didn't deal with that side of things, so I had to set up the environment for the tests manually.
There is some work on tool_dependencies.xml ongoing within planemo, John Chilton would be the person to ask (CC'd directly).
Thanks again for your advice and the links, I will investigate trying to set up a local solution (including some CI testing!).
This is something where using planemo ought to be very useful - for now I still do my local testing with a test Galaxy instance via:
$ ./run_tests.sh -id my_tool_id
Peter ___________________________________________________________ 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/
Hello Dave
Thanks for addressing the specific issue of the tests failing to run.
Re my initial problem vis-a-vis a tool with tests that worked locally but failed on the toolsheds, this appears to be a result of the two environments using differing versions of perl. This caused the ordering of data in the output files to differ from the reference output in the tests on the toolshed.
As the tool wraps a third-party program, I've addressed this by explicitly specifying the version of perl that it uses (at least it seems to have worked for my latest version on the test toolshed - I will update the main toolshed next).
The repositories in question are: https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/pjbriggs/pal_finder https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/pjbriggs/pal_finder
I see a separate problem with a different tool which I'll investigate next and report if I can't understand the toolshed test failure.
Thanks again for your help,
Best wishes
Peter
On 18/03/15 13:46, Dave Bouvier wrote:
Gentlemen,
The issue with the nightly testing was due to a stalled test run blocking subsequent tests. I've cleared out that blockage and a manual test run appears to have completed successfully, as should future automated test runs. As always, feel free to let us know if you encounter any additional inexplicable behavior.
--Dave B.On 03/18/2015 07:00 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello Peter C.
Thanks for your comments and advice Ironically after I sent that email the tests for the next tool I looked at in the toolshed had been run in the past couple of days.
That's good. I can also confirm that the Test Tool Shed example I gave was tested overnight, although it looks like a novel failure: https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
I'm interested because I've got a couple of tools that seem to work okay when I run the tests locally, but are reported as failing on the toolshed, and I wanted to see if I'd addressed the issue for one of them by updating the tool dependencies.
I suggest asking on this mailing list, posting the shareable Tool Shed URL and a copy of the error message. Hopefully it will be a simple issue (forgetting a test file is my most common mistake), or it may be that another tool author has seen the same error (which can happen due to problems in Galaxy itself).
(As an aside I'd also assumed that passing tests is one of the conditions for the tool to be marked as "verified", but maybe that's not the case?)
I think there is still a human involved, but passing tests is expected for a "verified" tool.
However as you say, more testing locally seems to be a good way to go - thanks for your suggestions. I looked at planemo briefly a while ago and it looked good. The other issue I've had with testing is actually testing tool installation (i.e. tool_dependencies.xml) - I recall that planemo didn't deal with that side of things, so I had to set up the environment for the tests manually.
There is some work on tool_dependencies.xml ongoing within planemo, John Chilton would be the person to ask (CC'd directly).
Thanks again for your advice and the links, I will investigate trying to set up a local solution (including some CI testing!).
This is something where using planemo ought to be very useful - for now I still do my local testing with a test Galaxy instance via:
$ ./run_tests.sh -id my_tool_id
Peter ___________________________________________________________ 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 Dave,
Can you check for stalls on the following repositories please? They've not been tested for nearly two months:
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/clinod Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blast2go Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/effectivet3 Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/samtools_depad Last tested 2015-01-29, Converting local (test-data) bam to sam failed
The cause of the last failure is different (and is also failing on the Test Tool Shed), raised separately here:
https://lists.galaxyproject.org/pipermail/galaxy-dev/2015-March/021650.html http://dev.list.galaxyproject.org/test-base-twilltestcase-py-Converting-loca...
--
Could you tweak the "Latest revision: failing tool tests" output to include the date last tested in the table of results?
Over on the test tool shed there are plenty of recent failures which I will email about separately - I'll report back here if I spot any more stall entries where there tests look backlogged.
Thanks,
Peter
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Dave Bouvier dave@bx.psu.edu wrote:
Gentlemen,
The issue with the nightly testing was due to a stalled test run blocking subsequent tests. I've cleared out that blockage and a manual test run appears to have completed successfully, as should future automated test runs. As always, feel free to let us know if you encounter any additional inexplicable behavior.
--Dave B.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Dave,
Can you check for stalls on the following repositories please? They've not been tested for nearly two months:
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/clinod Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blast2go Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/effectivet3 Last tested 2015-01-29, Exception: Job in error state.
https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/samtools_depad Last tested 2015-01-29, Converting local (test-data) bam to sam failed
The cause of the last failure is different (and is also failing on the Test Tool Shed), raised separately here:
https://lists.galaxyproject.org/pipermail/galaxy-dev/2015-March/021650.html http://dev.list.galaxyproject.org/test-base-twilltestcase-py-Converting-loca...
--
Could you tweak the "Latest revision: failing tool tests" output to include the date last tested in the table of results?
Issue filed for this enhancement suggestion:
https://trello.com/c/eBXs2LxL/2571-show-date-last-tested-in-toolshed-searche...
Peter
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Peter Cock p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Dave,
...
Could you tweak the "Latest revision: failing tool tests" output to include the date last tested in the table of results?
Issue filed for this enhancement suggestion:
https://trello.com/c/eBXs2LxL/2571-show-date-last-tested-in-toolshed-searche...
Peter
Hi again Dave,
As far as I can tell from my limited random sampling, the last tests on the Test Tool Shed were back on 2015-03-18 (about three weeks ago).
I take it there are some technical problems again? :(
I'd particularly like to see the test results for this repository (which I expect to pass, in which case I will update the main Tool Shed entry):
https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/devteam/ncbi_blast_plus/
Thanks,
Peter
Thanks Peter. I've reported the details of the specific tool that I was having problems with in my message to Dave B.
planemo already looks really good, if it could handle the tool dependencies as well then that would be the icing on the cake.
Thanks for your help, best wishes
Peter
On 18/03/15 11:00, Peter Cock wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Peter Briggs peter.briggs@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello Peter C.
Thanks for your comments and advice Ironically after I sent that email the tests for the next tool I looked at in the toolshed had been run in the past couple of days.
That's good. I can also confirm that the Test Tool Shed example I gave was tested overnight, although it looks like a novel failure: https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/sample_seqs
I'm interested because I've got a couple of tools that seem to work okay when I run the tests locally, but are reported as failing on the toolshed, and I wanted to see if I'd addressed the issue for one of them by updating the tool dependencies.
I suggest asking on this mailing list, posting the shareable Tool Shed URL and a copy of the error message. Hopefully it will be a simple issue (forgetting a test file is my most common mistake), or it may be that another tool author has seen the same error (which can happen due to problems in Galaxy itself).
(As an aside I'd also assumed that passing tests is one of the conditions for the tool to be marked as "verified", but maybe that's not the case?)
I think there is still a human involved, but passing tests is expected for a "verified" tool.
However as you say, more testing locally seems to be a good way to go - thanks for your suggestions. I looked at planemo briefly a while ago and it looked good. The other issue I've had with testing is actually testing tool installation (i.e. tool_dependencies.xml) - I recall that planemo didn't deal with that side of things, so I had to set up the environment for the tests manually.
There is some work on tool_dependencies.xml ongoing within planemo, John Chilton would be the person to ask (CC'd directly).
Thanks again for your advice and the links, I will investigate trying to set up a local solution (including some CI testing!).
This is something where using planemo ought to be very useful - for now I still do my local testing with a test Galaxy instance via:
$ ./run_tests.sh -id my_tool_id
Peter
galaxy-dev@lists.galaxyproject.org
-
Dave Bouvier -
Peter Briggs -
Peter Cock