Closed nwiltsie closed 11 months ago
@nwiltsie I ended up removing the local set_env
in #45 so the branch here will need to be updated to resolve the conflicts
@yashpatel6 You monster. Changes merged, I'm re-running NFTest for sanity now and I'll report back once that passes.
Confirmed, be57078 (after merging the changes from #45) still passes NFTest: /hot/software/pipeline/pipeline-recalibrate-BAM/Nextflow/development/unreleased/nwiltsie_fix_scratch/log-nftest-20231221T185448Z.log
Description
This just removes the local copies of
methods.set_env
andmethods.check_limits
in favor of the updated versions from the submodule.Unfortunately there's not a great way to show that the code blocks are equivalent other than by pasting diffs in here (I stripped a few comments):
Testing Results
Checklist
[x] I have read the code review guidelines and the code review best practice on GitHub check-list.
[x] I have reviewed the Nextflow pipeline standards.
[x] The name of the branch is meaningful and well formatted following the standards, using [AD_username (or 5 letters of AD if AD is too long)]-[brief_description_of_branch].
[x] I have set up or verified the branch protection rule following the github standards before opening this pull request.
[x] I have added my name to the contributors listings in the
manifest
block in thenextflow.config
as part of this pull request, am listed already, or do not wish to be listed. (This acknowledgement is optional.)[x] I have added the changes included in this pull request to the
CHANGELOG.md
under the next release version or unreleased, and updated the date.[ ] I have updated the version number in the
metadata.yaml
andmanifest
block of thenextflow.config
file following semver, or the version number has already been updated. (Leave it unchecked if you are unsure about new version number and discuss it with the infrastructure team in this PR.)[x] I have tested the pipeline using NFTest, or I have justified why I did not need to run NFTest above.