galaxy icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
galaxy copied to clipboard

tool verification: move no output assertion

Open bernt-matthias opened this issue 2 years ago • 1 comments
trafficstars

from planemo the verify_tool function is called from within an try-except block which silently catches any exception.

Thus any exception raised from within verify_tool will not be detected, i.e. the assertion needs to be moved into _verify_outputs (which also seems to make sense by name) in order to make verify_tool record the problem properly.

This only affects tool tests. Guess we do not want to actually forbid tool runs with no outputs.. Even if I don't know what they are used for.

How to test the changes?

(Select all options that apply)

  • [ ] I've included appropriate automated tests.
  • [ ] This is a refactoring of components with existing test coverage.
  • [ ] Instructions for manual testing are as follows:
    1. [add testing steps and prerequisites here if you didn't write automated tests covering all your changes]

License

  • [x] I agree to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license.

bernt-matthias avatar May 15 '23 16:05 bernt-matthias

A minor remark on the PR title: In general it is a good idea for the title to document what the PR does, instead of how you did something (which is pretty clear from the code anyway). So in this case I'd say something like "Make sure that missing outputs are recorded as test errors" helps a lot, both for the docs and the reviewer.

mvdbeek avatar Jul 31 '23 16:07 mvdbeek

@bernt-matthias I'm bumping this to 24.1. Feel free to re-milestone.

jdavcs avatar Feb 26 '24 20:02 jdavcs

Guess I should backport this to 24.0 since this suddenly became a bug fix :)

Fixes https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/issues/17829

bernt-matthias avatar Mar 25 '24 12:03 bernt-matthias

Should we target 24.0?

bernt-matthias avatar Mar 26 '24 08:03 bernt-matthias

@bernt-matthias I'm merging this into dev - I don't think it's a bug (as per discussion above)? I've also edited the title - please feel free to change it if it's not a good summary of the PR. As per this comment, we'd have to manually edit this for the 24.1 release notes. EDIT: i'm rerunning the failed tests first as a sanity check.

jdavcs avatar Mar 29 '24 17:03 jdavcs

It is definitely a bug, 24.0 is a good idea

mvdbeek avatar Mar 29 '24 21:03 mvdbeek

https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/pull/17873

bernt-matthias avatar Apr 01 '24 15:04 bernt-matthias

Not sure how to retarget without adding loads of commits?

bernt-matthias avatar Apr 01 '24 16:04 bernt-matthias

Not sure how to retarget without adding loads of commits?

You should be able to edit the target: click the 'edit' button at the top of the page - it'll let you edit the title AND the base branch: you'll see a drop down list. Select '24.0 release' - it'll ask you to confirm and that's it. There may or may not be conflicts - is that what you were referring to?

jdavcs avatar Apr 01 '24 16:04 jdavcs

If I do this I get 215 commits.

bernt-matthias avatar Apr 01 '24 16:04 bernt-matthias

If I do this I get 215 commits.

Oh no! Would you like to do #17873 instead of this (adding the extra commit to it)? i.e., merge it into 24.0 and then, if there are conflicts, manually forward-merge it into dev?

jdavcs avatar Apr 01 '24 17:04 jdavcs

All this is now in https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/pull/17874 (had to create a new PR since I force pushed before reopening .. and apparently one cannot reopen in this case).

bernt-matthias avatar Apr 02 '24 07:04 bernt-matthias