Closed alneberg closed 6 years ago
@ewels, I think this PR is faulty? Feel free to close this one if you agree.
Faulty how? Looks good to me!
The tests are failing because the travis config hasn’t been set up yet (it’s blank).
Ok, if you think it looks good, then I'm pleased! I just thought it was one of those other cases where there were no "script" defined so that it would actually make sense to force it to run locally?
In this case it's fine to have executor 'local'
because the process execute groovy code, not an bash script. Removing the local
executor it will print a warning message when running the workflow in a cluster/cloud.
Yes, I didn't read far enough down the diff to realise that it was an exec
not a script
. The process name has been updated in other repos to use a script and run as a regular process, so I think it's fine to remove it like this, as we'll almost certainly update it further in the future.
Thanks for the clarification though @pditommaso! 👍
Related to https://github.com/nextflow-io/nextflow/issues/693#issuecomment-391792952 and https://github.com/nf-core/cookiecutter/issues/30