[21.09] fix JobWrapper: use correct fail method#14235
[21.09] fix JobWrapper: use correct fail method#14235bernt-matthias wants to merge 9 commits intogalaxyproject:release_21.09from
Conversation
5c0450e to
cf618e6
Compare
361c9ad to
23b8cc2
Compare
which should fail (galaxyproject#14206)
if the JobWrapper.fail method is called directly exit code (etc) are lost. fixes galaxyproject#14206 not sure why this error popped up now, probably a change in tool verification ..?
commented anyway
is wrong if 0
|
I added a branch in the code to check for the existence of the output files in any case (i.e. also if Lets see if this has side effects |
7646ebd to
131576f
Compare
|
OK. There are side effects: in a non So I reverted and removed the test tool from the framework test. Question: Would something like 131576f with an additional check if the dataset has been purged (no idea how to access the dataset here) be of interest? |
|
Could need some help here.
I guess we should have framework and integration tests and something like 131576f.. Also to have the same behavior in both settings ( |
|
You could access the config settings in |
32207c6 to
d420389
Compare
datasets
|
Thanks @mvdbeek .. but wouldn't it be better to have identical results in both cases (standard / There seem to be so many cases, e.g. what happens if the user purges a dataset during the runtime of a job in a |
|
Maybe we should just mere the bugfix, i.e. the use of the correct fail method. And work on the test and everything else in a separate PR? |
Add a test case and fix the job wrapper.
Since recently planemo was changed to use
outputs_to_working_directorythis branch of the code was used which used the wrong fail method. The consequence was that exit code, etc was lost.fixes #14206
supersedes #14210
How to test the changes?
(Select all options that apply)
License