Closed jdidion closed 2 years ago
On second look, the cwlpack
output is a bit wonky; can you try again using https://github.com/rabix/sbpack/pull/25 ?
There is no difference in the packed workflow between main
and #25
There is no difference in the packed workflow between
main
and #25
Without the PR, cwlpack
adds the following to the top level dictionary, which should only contain $graph
and cwlVersion
inputs": [],
"outputs": [],
"requirements": [
{
"class": "InlineJavascriptRequirement"
}
]
You're right. It was picking up a different version of cwlpack on my path. It does not fix the cwljava issue though - the step input ID is still being parsed as echo_in1/inp1
.
Now that cwlpack
is fixed, I can confirm that the same error occurs even without cwlpack
as the original document is already packed. Python codegen doesn't not exhibit this behaviour.
I used cwlpack to pack the conformance test scatter-wf4. The resulting packed workflow (shown below) validates with
cwltool --validate
. However, when I parse the packed workflow using cwljava, the WorkflowStepInput sources have the form "echo_in1/inp1" when they should be either "main/inp1" or just "inp1".