Skip to content

Replace tabix module - #329

Open
georgiakes wants to merge 9 commits into
nf-core:devfrom
georgiakes:replace-tabix-module
Open

georgiakes wants to merge 9 commits into
nf-core:devfrom
georgiakes:replace-tabix-module

Conversation

@georgiakes

@georgiakes georgiakes commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closes #323

PR checklist

  • This comment contains a description of changes (with reason).
  • If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add tests!
  • If you've added a new tool - have you followed the pipeline conventions in the contribution docs
  • If necessary, also make a PR on the nf-core/variantbenchmarking branch on the nf-core/test-datasets repository.
  • Make sure your code lints (nf-core pipelines lint).
  • Ensure the test suite passes (nextflow run . -profile test,docker --outdir <OUTDIR>).
  • Check for unexpected warnings in debug mode (nextflow run . -profile debug,test,docker --outdir <OUTDIR>).
  • Usage Documentation in docs/usage.md is updated.
  • Output Documentation in docs/output.md is updated.
  • CHANGELOG.md is updated.
  • README.md is updated (including new tool citations and authors/contributors).

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

nf-core pipelines lint overall result: Passed ✅ ⚠️

Posted for pipeline commit 6b2df94

+| ✅ 302 tests passed       |+
#| ❔   3 tests were ignored |#
#| ❔   1 tests had warnings |#
!| ❗   1 tests had warnings |!
Details

❗ Test warnings:

❔ Tests ignored:

  • files_unchanged - File ignored due to lint config: docs/images/nf-core-variantbenchmarking_logo_light.png
  • files_unchanged - File ignored due to lint config: docs/images/nf-core-variantbenchmarking_logo_dark.png
  • files_unchanged - File ignored due to lint config: .gitignore or .prettierignore

❔ Tests fixed:

✅ Tests passed:

Run details

  • nf-core/tools version 4.1.0
  • Run at 2026-10-02 14:07:14

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

❌ nf-test failed with latest Nextflow version

Note

Tests with Nextflow's latest version failed but it will not cause a CI workflow failure.
Please check if the failure is expected with newer (edge-)releases of Nextflow or if it needs fixing.

  • ❌ docker | latest-everything | Shard 1/7

See the full run for details.

@georgiakes
georgiakes requested a review from kubranarci October 2, 2026 10:32

@kubranarci kubranarci left a comment •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will keep checking PR, but in future can you please do not realign the code :D it creates so many changes to track and make the job hard.

Comment thread conf/modules.config
Comment thread subworkflows/local/compare_benchmark_results/main.nf Outdated
// meta is shared by all test vcfs of a tool and tag, add the file name so each vcf joins with its own index
TABIX_BGZIPTABIX(
REFORMAT_HEADER.out.output
REFORMAT_HEADER.out.output.map { meta, vcf -> [meta + [vcf_name: vcf.name], vcf, [], []] },

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why vcf_name is required here?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought is was failing because the meta id would be the same for multiple samples.
I removed it and added groupBy since groupTuple is a legacy operator.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm it doesn't run with version 25.10.4 though.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

meta.id wont be the same as it is always unique (schema controls it)

@georgiakes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I will keep checking PR, but in future can you please do not realign the code :D it creates so many changes to track and make the job hard.

Ohhh. Yeah really sorry for that. It will not happen again.

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.

2 participants