Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

meetup notes #48

Open
7 tasks
mvdbeek opened this issue Jul 19, 2021 · 6 comments
Open
7 tasks

meetup notes #48

mvdbeek opened this issue Jul 19, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@mvdbeek
Copy link
Member

mvdbeek commented Jul 19, 2021

  • Put videos and slides on IWC repo
  • Include overview of workflow in README
  • Static site

New workflows:

Some of the new workflows might need more processing power than we can get from github hosted runner.
(Though we might try and use the tool test data for the most expensive step ?)
Some ideas:

  • Submit to real servers ?
  • A pulsar endpoint ?

Would like to make it easier to find workflows from within Galaxy:

  • More central TRS
    • what to do about missing tools ?
      • Request a tool for missing tools, send to admin ?
      • Give link to install / ephemeris yaml … open issue see if someone jumps at it

For next roadmap.

  • Rewrite workflow extraction, extract with labels, preview, bugs

Publishing to IWC requires coding / git experience. Lower submission threshold:

  • Graphic interface for definition of test file.
  • Atomic renaming, to rename tests. Extract test from invocation.
@bgruening
Copy link
Member

  • usegalaxy.eu is happy to run workflow tests, we can make this an opt-in in a config yaml file. By default we use GHA, but people can specify a list of public servers (that list we do maintain) that we test against them
  • A pulsar endpoint ? --> hopefully in the next 12 month we can submit to the entire pulsar network
  • Request a tool for missing tools, send to admin ? --> I like that.
  • We should also filter out or mark workflows that are not runnable in a different color

@mvdbeek
Copy link
Member Author

mvdbeek commented Jul 19, 2021

  • usegalaxy.eu is happy to run workflow tests, we can make this an opt-in in a config yaml file. By default we use GHA, but people can specify a list of public servers (that list we do maintain) that we test against them

That was requested before, so I think we should do it. I am worried about debugging such workflows, but maybe that's the push we need to really get a grip on scheduling exceptions.

@bwlang
Copy link
Contributor

bwlang commented Jul 19, 2021

Sorry I missed this!...
We have some policy/infrastructure issues open:

  • purpose/mission
  • which workflows do we want to accept - which are not appropriate
  • code of conduct

I'll try to put some energy into making/copying drafts over unless someone else is interested.

@mvdbeek
Copy link
Member Author

mvdbeek commented Jul 19, 2021

Yes, those are important points, any input is welcome.

@bgruening
Copy link
Member

  • usegalaxy.eu is happy to run workflow tests, we can make this an opt-in in a config yaml file. By default we use GHA, but people can specify a list of public servers (that list we do maintain) that we test against them

That was requested before, so I think we should do it. I am worried about debugging such workflows, but maybe that's the push we need to really get a grip on scheduling exceptions.

can we not make this public by default?

@mvdbeek
Copy link
Member Author

mvdbeek commented Jul 20, 2021

These are unstructured exceptions (or just pauses in the worst case), I don't think we can make all of the logs public, and even that you'd have to sift through the invocation logs if the server is busy ... we need to add an additional relationship for scheduling errors, and then create them when we get into exceptions or unexpected situations.

@mvdbeek mvdbeek changed the title July meetup notes meetup notes Oct 18, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants