Closed jfy133 closed 5 months ago
Not tested because on train
If you want I can write a github action which periodically checks https://nf-co.re/pipeline_names.json and creates that.
One thing I find sub-optimal: we now have conf/pipeline/
and pipeline/
. too easy to confuse the two, imo
One thing I find sub-optimal: we now have
conf/pipeline/
andpipeline/
. too easy to confuse the two, imo
both have different usage, but I see your point
yes, different usage and same name is never good
If you want I can write a github action which periodically checks https://nf-co.re/pipeline_names.json and creates that.
That would be awesome
Should I wait for the GHA @mashehu before merging? But otherwise I will prepare the tools template to uncomment the relevant code, and update our new-project-guidance
yes, I will add the GHA to this PR. Any chance we can use a different name than pipeline/
for the placeholders?
yes, I will add the GHA to this PR. Any chance we can use a different name than
pipeline/
for the placeholders?
No I don't think so. It's already embedded in existing pipelines for a while, so if we changed it would break compatibility with old releases. @maxulysse correct me if I'm wrong
okay, GHA is there. as usual need to really test it in production (I ran it locally with act
and it looked fine, but we will see). Left some testing code in it, so we will need a clean-up PR after this one is merged and the workflow has been tested
Looks good to me @mashehu !
If you can both review: https://github.com/nf-core/tools/pull/2936/ and re-review this one, then i will merge this PR and shortly after the tools one
This is for allowing us to uncomment out the part in the pipeline template.
I wonder if it just works 'as is' or if we have to add an explicit profile or not... ideas @maxulysse ?