Suzanne Jin

> > Do you think from a user point of view it would be easier to provide each parameter in a separate column than all of them in the same...

> > > Which parameters do you think MUST stay the same throughout? I can't think of any off the top of my head. We could even iterate the input...

hello @pinin4fjords, I applied some last modifications and also most of your suggestions. There are only two last problems remain: - Parsing toolsheet relies on 1) first validateParams on `params`,...

Hi @pinin4fjords, I modified the code to use category based params in the simplified meta. Let me know if it looks better for you now :)

Hey @pinin4fjords, as you mentioned in https://github.com/nf-core/differentialabundance/pull/443#discussion_r2091378271 it will be nice to start thinking about coherent ways of implementation that don't lead to confusion and redundance. And polish this aspect...

Alternatively, we can do the following: 1. Define each row in the current default paramsheet as a yaml config in `conf`. 2. Define a function in utils that load these...

Hey @pinin4fjords, I totally agree with you to not have config file set alongside the paramsets. I was just suggesting on a possible format that would keep the default configs...

> OK, now I'm understanding better. So we ditch paramsheet.csv entirely? I like that. We'd basically be treating paramsets almost like profiles, which is a good thing. > > One...

Hello @pinin4fjords @grst @mirpedrol @JoseEspinosa @caraiz2001 , I am finally coming back from a long stop due to thesis writing. So, before we introduced some large changes to enable iteration...

Hi @grst I see your concern. I wonder if there is an alternative though, maybe by limiting the scope of the include function or something? Cuz, without any include, I...