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

Update output names for ReblockGVCF #1443

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jessicaway
Copy link
Member

@jessicaway jessicaway commented Dec 3, 2024

Description

Change requested by the variants team


Checklist

If you can answer "yes" to the following items, please add a checkmark next to the appropriate checklist item(s) and notify our WARP team by tagging @broadinstitute/warp-admins in a comment on this PR.

  • Did you add inputs, outputs, or tasks to a workflow?
  • Did you modify, delete or move: file paths, file names, input names, output names, or task names?
  • If you made a changelog update, did you update the pipeline version number?

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
UltimaGenomicsWholeGenomeGermline.changelog.md has not been changed and needs to be updated
BroadInternalUltimaGenomics.changelog.md has not been changed and needs to be updated
Some changelog files need updating. See output for details.
validation_failed

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
UltimaGenomicsWholeGenomeGermline.wdl has not had its version updated
BroadInternalUltimaGenomics.wdl has not been changed and needs updating
Some WDLs or changelog files need updating. See output for details.
validation_failed

@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ workflow UltimaGenomicsWholeGenomeGermline {

# Outputs that will be retained when execution is complete
output {
File output_gvcf = ReblockGVCF.output_vcf
File output_gvcf_index = ReblockGVCF.output_vcf_index
File output_gvcf = ReblockGVCF.reblocked_gvcf

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to change the outputs here to? I don't think we (GVS) ever direct consume the output of this WDL, so it's likely that maintaining its output naming scheme was deliberate. But I just wanted to verify that here

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change is necessary since the output of the reblock workflow is being referenced. I left the output name for this workflow the same, but needed to update the reference to the output of ReblockGVCF

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yup, totally makes sense why this change was needed. As I don't know the users of this particular wdl, I mostly wanted to ensure that it wasn't something any end users would be running before sending the data into GVS (in which case we'd want to update its outputs as well). It sounds as though this is not expected behavior though, and this one has only been touched because it consumes ReblockGVCF for other reasons. Thanks!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's a good question. I'm not sure whether we expect the outputs of this workflow to be used in joint calling.
@rickymagner would you be able to comment on whether we expect the outputs of UltimaGenomicsWholeGenomeGermline to be used for joint calling in GVS?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm I don't know if GVS has been used on Ultima samples before. Does anyone from the Variants team know if that's an existing/planned application for GVS?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @rickymagner!
Sounds like this isn't currently a known issue @koncheto-broad, let me know if this becomes an issue in the future and we can change it here too.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for clarifying, y'all! I think we pretty exclusively use Illumina samples at this point, so the Ultima pipeline is unlikely to affect us. And if we discover that it does, we can always just reach out then!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
All WDLs and changelog files appear to be valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
All changelog files are valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
All changelog files are valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
All WDLs and changelog files appear to be valid for this release.

Copy link

@koncheto-broad koncheto-broad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
All WDLs and changelog files appear to be valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
All changelog files are valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
All WDLs and changelog files appear to be valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
All changelog files are valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Remember to squash merge!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Version Validation Results:

Comparing versions and changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/staging':
All WDLs and changelog files appear to be valid for this release.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

🔍Changelog Validation Results:

Comparing changelogs for pipelines that differ from the versions on 'origin/develop':
All changelog files are valid for this release.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants