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

Move tools from sub repos #291

Open
19 tasks
bernt-matthias opened this issue Jan 23, 2025 · 4 comments
Open
19 tasks

Move tools from sub repos #291

bernt-matthias opened this issue Jan 23, 2025 · 4 comments

Comments

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor

bernt-matthias commented Jan 23, 2025

I'm currently trying to get rid of the last conda environments on my instance, i.e. all that do not yet have a biocontainer. Quiet a few of them are from https://github.com/workflow4metabolomics/ (all those which are not yet in https://github.com/workflow4metabolomics/tools-metabolomics).

With the help of @bgruening I will try to manually construct containers for the current versions. In order to make this sustainable we can either:

  1. add IUC style CI to all the subrepos and add them to the planemo-monitor
  2. move the tools to the main repo, would require access to the corresponding toolshed accounts to provide admin access to the TS repos for the user used in the main repo.
  3. another solution would be to deprecate these tools, which should be done in the TS and github

Main motivation is to get maintenance (i.e. transfer them to the community maintained repo) for these tools (if still needed).

What do you all think? Ping @yguitton @lecorguille @fgiacomoni @ethevenot @melpetera @marie-tremblay-metatoul @mmonsoor.

The preference of @hechth and myself would be to move the tools (or deprecate if the tool is not of any use anymore).

I will collect tools sorted by owner and some infos below here (the list might grow):

@melpetera
Copy link
Member

Dear @bernt-matthias @bgruening and @hechth

Thank you for this complete listing and reviewing. Truth is we discussed this question last december in a W4M coreteam meeting. To make a little history, we aggreed a few years ago to go for the option '2' you mentioned. Unfortunately, as months and years have gone by, alsmost nothing happend, since we decided to handle it tool by tool at each maintainer's pace, which sadly led to never put it on the top of the list. As this issue became critical, we decided last december to plan a dedicated hackathon to handle it for good this time, but we have not yet settled the date (truth is we were supposed to settle the day today, but it got delayed).

So now the question is: will our W4M hackathon timeline match your needs, or do we need to adjust a plan for quicker action? Do you have any deadline or need for all this to be ready before? To note, I doubt we will be able to schedule our W4M hackathon before April from my "multi-sites planning experience", with I think a probable date arround June 2025. But we can maybe settle a compromise that can be quickly deployed to cope with the delay between now and the hackathon, if needed.

@melpetera
Copy link
Member

To note: the tool here: https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/repos/melpetera/corr_table
has its code here: https://unh-pfem-gitlab.ara.inrae.fr/pfem-public/tool-correlationtable

Ideally to also move to tools-metabolomics.

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor Author

we decided last december to plan a dedicated hackathon to handle it

Great idea.

So now the question is: will our W4M hackathon timeline match your needs, or do we need to adjust a plan for quicker action?

The hackathon is perfect. The main motivation for this issue was to keep track. For the W4M tools installed on my server (I guess its a large fraction) we made a bit of progress to provide containers for the current versions: BioContainers/multi-package-containers#3411

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess another great goal would be to have the W4M workflows in https://github.com/galaxyproject/iwc

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants