Skip to content

feat: make FASTQ analysis optional - #315

Open
adthrasher wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
feat/qc_fastq_option
Open

feat: make FASTQ analysis optional#315
adthrasher wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
feat/qc_fastq_option

Conversation

@adthrasher

@adthrasher adthrasher commented May 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This makes the FASTQ portion of the QC pipeline optional. The default remains to run, but this allows a user to disable the analysis that depends on FASTQ files.

Also contains an off-topic change to add exceptions for EmptyOutputs to tasks with no expected outputs, since that rule was added to Sprocket. This is now in #317.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure:

  • You have added a few sentences describing the PR here.
  • The code passes all CI tests without any errors or warnings.
  • You have added tests (when appropriate).
  • You have added an entry in any relevant CHANGELOGs (when appropriate).
  • If you have made any changes to the scripts/ or docker/ directories, please ensure any image versions have been incremented accordingly!
  • You have updated the README or other documentation to account for these changes (when appropriate).

@adthrasher adthrasher self-assigned this May 18, 2026
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
@adthrasher
adthrasher requested a review from a-frantz May 18, 2026 16:02
@adthrasher

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Fix for GATK4 tests is in #282

Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
@a-frantz
a-frantz requested a review from DelaramR August 3, 2026 20:14

@a-frantz a-frantz left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

as discussed over DM, the comments I request be deleted miss the mark. The fact they match the task default is a coincidence; the inputs have reason to be specified here at the workflow level.

Even though specifying here is technically redundant with relying on the default task values, I'd rather explicitly specify them here with the reasoning. Respecifying here at the workflow level is also a safeguard against the default switching out from under us

Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
@adthrasher
adthrasher requested a review from a-frantz August 3, 2026 20:54
a-frantz
a-frantz previously approved these changes Aug 3, 2026

@a-frantz a-frantz left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

a take it or leave it doc suggestion, and another less confident thought I had about potential QC docs (tangent from this PR)

Comment thread workflows/qc/quality-check-standard.wdl Outdated
Co-authored-by: Ari Frantz <ari.frantz@stjude.org>
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