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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add a conformance test for MultipleInputFeatureRequirement on Workflow outputs #169

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 23, 2022
Merged

Add a conformance test for MultipleInputFeatureRequirement on Workflow outputs #169

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e64d342
Add a conformance test for MultipleInputFeatureRequirement on Workflo…
kinow May 10, 2022
478c99b
Merge branch '1.2.1_proposed' into multiple_input-output
mr-c Jun 23, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions conformance_tests.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3570,6 +3570,18 @@
and capture the output correctly.
tags: [ shell_command, command_line_tool ]

- label: multiple-input-feature-requirement
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

p.s.: was reading the doc for conformance tests, and noticed this line:

label: a short list of underscore (_) separated words that succinctly identifies and explains the test.

I had already used dashes, as I did in the previous test, where I followed the pattern of the previous test… Is there a reason for underscores? Should we fix the existing labels? Or maybe update https://github.com/common-workflow-language/cwl-v1.2/blob/1.2.1_proposed/CONFORMANCE_TESTS.md?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm.. I don't have a strong opinion right now, except that we should be consistent. Can you make a separate issue to discuss this?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree! Done: #191

Thanks

output: {
"hello_world_in_two_lines": [
"hello\n",
"world\n"
]
}
tool: tests/multiple_input_feature_requirement.cwl
doc: |
MultipleInputFeatureRequirement on workflow outputs.
tags: [ workflow, multiple_input ]

- label: js-input-record
# The output does not have the last \n due to the -n passed to echo
output: {
Expand Down
29 changes: 29 additions & 0 deletions tests/multiple_input_feature_requirement.cwl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
cwlVersion: v1.2
class: Workflow

requirements:
- class: MultipleInputFeatureRequirement

inputs: []

steps:
step1:
run: echo-tool.cwl
in:
in:
default: hello
out: [out]
step2:
run: echo-tool.cwl
in:
in:
default: world
out: [out]

outputs:
hello_world_in_two_lines:
type:
type: array
items: string
# Only allowed with MultipleInputFeatureRequirement
outputSource: [step1/out, step2/out]