-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 651
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
Bug in workflow output definitions with HTTP input file publishing #5480
Comments
Interesting. This is happening because the workflow output syntax uses the same publishing logic as I think we can address this edge case. But in the meantime, why do you want to publish a file that wasn't actually used by the pipeline? |
Thanks for your answer! The pipeline can take GVCF input data which gets merged into the same channel as the generated GVCF files for samples that only have CRAM input. I then output all files in that channel which causes this edge case. I temporarily fixed this by filtering out the GVCFs for which the file path does not start with the work dir. |
I see. I think for now we'll just disable publishing for these files so that your pipeline can finish, while we consider a more long-term solution. Do you actually want these extra files to be published? |
Not really since we already have these in another location, but it doesn't really hurt that much in this case since these are small files |
Signed-off-by: Ben Sherman <[email protected]>
Bug report
Expected behavior and actual behavior
When trying to publish an HTTP file that has not been staged in a process, the pipeline fails with the following error:
Steps to reproduce the problem
Simply running this script is enough to reproduce the error:
It does seem to succesfully resolve itself when I omitted the
output
block, but it didn't publish the fileProgram output
nextflow.log
Environment
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: