Open tom-tan opened 1 year ago
Note: Once we have a consensus about the deprecation, we can leave some of the cases for common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language#783 as undocumented in CWL v1.2.1.
@tom-tan I agree with your expected results; @tetron and I think that this is a cwltool
bug; we should add conformance tests for this.
we should add conformance tests for this.
Does it mean that we take the second option? (i.e., "Fix cwltool for nested inputBinding
" in the above description)
we should add conformance tests for this.
Does it mean that we take the second option? (i.e., "Fix cwltool for nested
inputBinding
" in the above description)
Yes, the second option
It is available since CWL v1.0 but its usecase can be covered with
CommandInputParameter#inputBinding
andCommandInputRecordField#inputBinding
, I guess.In addition to that, the current behavior of
CommandInputEnumSchema#inputBinding
withCommandInputParameter#inputBinding
in cwltool seems to be unintended.Here is an example.
enum-order-root-leaf.cwl:
enum-order-job.json:
I expect that it returns the following in which the value
a
andd
occur only once:However, here is the actual output of
cwltool
:There are three options to fix it:
CommandInputEnumSchema#inputBinding
not to care about such complicated casesinputBinding
What do you think about it?
Related: common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language#783