-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Remove tutorial in order to have any changes #1
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The best option here is to identify (within `check_samplesheet.py`) the logic responsible for modification | ||
of the input file and move it to separate Python script (`bin/place_the_script_here.py`). That way one can | ||
still remove all the logic responsible for validation and replace it with `eido`, and modify the input | ||
`samplesheet.csv` using newly extracted Python script. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would this also be possible by using PEP capabilities, as maybe an alternative approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure how popular is that in nf-core
pipelines but I talked about it with James and he mentioned something about moving this logic to separate workflow in the pipeline. In that case this problem will disappear.
|
||
## 6. Adjust the workflow responsible for input check | ||
When incorporating new modules, the workflow will change. In my case changes were needed in | ||
`modules/local/samplesheet_check.nf` and `subworkflows/local/input_check.nf`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You need to specify in a bit more detail what these changes were.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same question as above. Do we want to go into details here when whole PR is available to see the changes exactly?
No description provided.