Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

And Nextflow regression test, update CHANGELOG #55

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

nwiltsie
Copy link
Member

@nwiltsie nwiltsie commented Mar 7, 2024

This is picking up from #53 (comment) - I just turned the NFTest case added in that PR into a Nextflow configuration regression test case.

As usual, I make no claim that the test output is "correct", but I do assert that it is what the configuration is currently outputting.

Checklist

  • I have read the code review guidelines and the code review best practice on GitHub check-list.

  • I have reviewed the Nextflow pipeline standards.

  • The name of the branch is meaningful and well formatted following the standards, using [AD_username (or 5 letters of AD if AD is too long)]-[brief_description_of_branch].

  • I have set up or verified the branch protection rule following the github standards before opening this pull request.

  • I have added my name to the contributors listings in the manifest block in the nextflow.config as part of this pull request, am listed
    already, or do not wish to be listed. (This acknowledgement is optional.)

  • I have added the changes included in this pull request to the CHANGELOG.md under the next release version or unreleased, and updated the date.

  • I have updated the version number in the metadata.yaml and manifest block of the nextflow.config file following semver, or the version number has already been updated. (Leave it unchecked if you are unsure about new version number and discuss it with the infrastructure team in this PR.)

  • I have tested the pipeline on at least one A-mini sample.

Copy link
Contributor

@yashpatel6 yashpatel6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! Any concerns @alkaZeltser ?

@alkaZeltser
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks good! Any concerns @alkaZeltser ?

LGTM, btw this test case could easily run on an F2 as well, but no problems with F16

@nwiltsie
Copy link
Member Author

nwiltsie commented Mar 7, 2024

LGTM, btw this test case could easily run on an F2 as well, but no problems with F16

The test isn't actually running on an F16 - it's just showing what the configuration would look like if you did run it on an F16, and making sure that doesn't change over time. See uclahs-cds/tool-Nextflow-action#12 for some more details.

@nwiltsie nwiltsie merged commit 25c2530 into main Mar 7, 2024
3 checks passed
@nwiltsie nwiltsie deleted the nwiltsie-add-config-test branch March 7, 2024 23:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants