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

MultiQC fails when input datasets that have the same dataset name/label #3280

Open
jennaj opened this issue Nov 4, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@jennaj
Copy link
Member

jennaj commented Nov 4, 2020

Problem: When two or more inputs have the same dataset name/label, the tool fails when creating symlinks for the job.

This is a common use case: Same inputs, different parameters = same output names but different content == want to compare results and cannot

More details plus workaround and examples at both ORG and EU servers here: galaxyproject/usegalaxy-playbook#315

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor

I imagine that quite a few tools (probably all with an input with multiple="true" ) have this problem. But fortunately the use case might be not that common for most of them.

I guess using the index from the loop

#for $i, $repeat in enumerate( $results )

Is the easiest fix. Question is if this needs to be removed from the output as well.

Maybe also this works..
https://multiqc.info/docs/#sample-names-prefixed-with-directories

But, maybe both changes do not make sense, since users will have no way to differentiate the samples in the output. In this case a check for equal sample names and a reasonable error message might be better.

@jennaj
Copy link
Member Author

jennaj commented Nov 16, 2020

But, maybe both changes do not make sense, since users will have no way to differentiate the samples in the output. In this case a check for equal sample names and a reasonable error message might be better.

Agree -- better error message that a biologist can interpret that points to more help directly on the tool form itself (rename inputs, plus how/why).

Would this be a papercut?

@bernt-matthias
Copy link
Contributor

Would this be a papercut?

Maybe .. alternatively I could try to get this in #3305 ..

in case you know MultiQC well I would appreciate a review.

@jennaj
Copy link
Member Author

jennaj commented Nov 18, 2020

Sure, that would simplify the MTS update/deployment to bundle it all together. Plus, just one version bump for all changes.

Looks like Maria is going to review. I can review too if this is added in as well :)

Thanks!

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