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

Models for Future Structured Tool State Work #18470

Closed

Conversation

jmchilton
Copy link
Member

"Meta" models describing tool inputs. The downstream work already includes client side validation of tool request and near instant async tool form submission and background job creation based on these models (#17393). Future work will include JSON schema definitions for the internal tool state for the execution of a single job, tool request tool state JSON schema that describes map/reduce operations available in the API that transcend multiple jobs, cleaner and more robust CWL implementations.

This part is the models and test validation framework that verify implementations as well the exposure of these models via the Tool Shed 2.0 API - both as the pydantic meta model description and as the JSON schema for the future tool request API. Future ToolShed 2.0 APIs will include JSON schemas for workflow definitions and tool test cases.

More information on the tool state project can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQOLpLN54CjrB-wbD463XqzvUm-dNB8vTXUFBExh_2o/edit?usp=sharing.

How to test the changes?

(Select all options that apply)

License

  • I agree to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license.

@jmchilton jmchilton force-pushed the structured_tool_state_models branch 7 times, most recently from a7af2c7 to 638800a Compare July 1, 2024 04:40
@jmchilton jmchilton force-pushed the structured_tool_state_models branch 3 times, most recently from 513066b to a5645e3 Compare July 2, 2024 21:32
@jmchilton jmchilton force-pushed the structured_tool_state_models branch from a5645e3 to 2457f97 Compare July 2, 2024 21:57
@jmchilton jmchilton marked this pull request as ready for review July 3, 2024 14:25
@jmchilton
Copy link
Member Author

I think tool section tags aren't implemented in the models - but given we're not touching Galaxy internals I think they can just get filled in in subsequent PRs adding more test cases and such.

@jmchilton
Copy link
Member Author

The tool state stuff in here is solid - but I've made a bunch of progress on I think a better tool shed 2.0 tool endpoint. I'm going to close this out and stabilize a PR I feel has a rich shed endpoint and a more future facing approach to caching.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant