-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
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
jessicaway
wants to merge
14
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
jw_update_reblock
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
71d8002
Update output names for ReblockGVCF
jessicaway 2e62ede
Updated pipeline_versions.txt with all pipeline version information
actions-user a8b7bfe
Update versions and changelogs
jessicaway 1abe40b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/jw_update_reblock' into jw_updat…
jessicaway e84d265
Updated pipeline_versions.txt with all pipeline version information
actions-user 00955ad
update changelogs
jessicaway bfb58cf
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/jw_update_reblock' into jw_updat…
jessicaway f4e3b62
Updated pipeline_versions.txt with all pipeline version information
actions-user 46168f4
Merge branch 'develop' into jw_update_reblock
jessicaway 5badc4c
the most minor major change
jessicaway ed5064d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/jw_update_reblock' into jw_updat…
jessicaway b9f8211
Updated pipeline_versions.txt with all pipeline version information
actions-user f53ba80
update version again
jessicaway a8dba53
Updated pipeline_versions.txt with all pipeline version information
actions-user File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
...nes/broad/dna_seq/germline/joint_genotyping/reblocking/ReblockGVCF.changelog.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
...seq/germline/single_sample/ugwgs/UltimaGenomicsWholeGenomeGermline.changelog.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
.../germline/single_sample/UltimaGenomics/BroadInternalUltimaGenomics.changelog.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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!