Hi Steffen, On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 14:44, Steffen Möller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12.06.19 09:00, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Hi Liubov, > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Liubov Chuprikova wrote: > >> I have updated qiime for a new version 2019.4.0, which is actually the > same > >> I need to use for testing newly packaged plugins. Could you please > check it > >> for me and upload? > > Done. Thanks for your work on this > > Indeed. Many thanks! :-) > I had not thought about it much, but Qiime is a workflow that is > complete and that Debian covers in toto with all DFSG requirements in > place. It is hence something we could run repetitively on external data > to ensure the reliability of the Debian Med package tree. Opinions? The > strategic aim IMHO is to make this CI work look nice to the biological > mind. The code executing the test would then be easily reproducible and > educational around the globe. > I am not familiar with how these workflow CI tests would be organized. After finishing with all the plugins, I am thinking of writing an autopkgtest that will cover all/most of the functionality of QIIME 2. BTW, their paper [1] has some worked examples as supplementary material. Hope, it will be useful. I guess that to make these workflow CI tests attractive to a biological mind and to serve as educational, they should also be organized as documented pipelines. Do you think, there are other ways to make them reachable and reusable for a non-developer? Best, > > Steffen (still stuck somewhere within bcbio) > > With regards, Liubov [1] https://peerj.com/preprints/27295/
