Hi all,

An update on this topic now that I've implemented a more satisfactory
solution on how to allow anonymous users to run workflows. This problem
arose when it became apparent that the journal we want to publish our
workflow in had as explicit requirement that users not be required to
register before using the web service. Galaxy at the moment requires users
to register before allowing them to use workflows, so a solution had to be

I've combined ingredients from two Galaxy wiki pages to make resolve this

>From the scaling wiki page I've copied the setup of using a single runner
Galaxy instance and multiple web front ends; in my case I'm running two
web front ends. One of these web front ends lets Galaxy administrate users
normally. The other front end I'm proxying through Apache while using the
remote user feature, as specified on the Apache Proxy page. However, rather
than relying on an external authentication mechanism, I've instead
configured Apache to set the client's remote address as the remote user
using the following directive:
RequestHeader set REMOTE_USER '%{REMOTE_ADDR}s'

This approach allows me to run a single normal web frontend allowing for
normal registration, and another one available at a distinct subdomain
using the client's IP address as implicit stable identifier. (I'm well
aware IPs are not be stable for everyone, which is still the biggest caveat
with this approach.) I'm hoping however this will still satisfy the editors
for our publication.

My intention to share this setup with the mailinglist is twofold: on the
one hand this approach could be useful to others that have to implement the
same requirements (no mandatory registration to run a workflow), while on
the other hand my approach might unknowingly lead to problems down the
road. Should this be the case please notify me how best to resolve this.
Otherwise I'm quite happy using this approach.


On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Tim te Beek <tim.te.b...@nbic.nl> wrote:

> I completely agree it's a bit of an unfortunate requirement in this
> case, but I'm not averse to (minor) code changes to achieve a more
> polished user experience. Something like the best guess mechanism
> Galaxy currently employs to recognize returning anonymous would be
> fine, but I don't know where to look to disable the login requirement
> to run workflows, or if that's at all possible.
> Best regards,
> Tim
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Ross <ross.laza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's one bad option for dealing with a bad requirement - at least it
> > requires no code changes...
> >
> > 1. create a new user called d...@where.ever.org for your Galaxy. Do
> > not require login in universe_wsgi.ini
> > 2. edit welcome.html - invite visitors not wanting all the benefits of
> > an individual registration to login as user:d...@where.ever.org if
> > they want to run workflows
> > 3. Add an extremely blunt disclaimer - although Galaxy will likely be
> > behaving 'correctly', unusual things will happen whenever 2 or more
> > users using the same account are banging away at the same history -
> > Individual registration is strongly recommended - register a free
> > account with a throw away email address - it's only for password
> > recovery.
> > Clearly registration is not mandatory - just sensible and free, so the
> > journal's off your back. Hope that demo account isn't multitasking too
> > often.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Tim te Beek <tim.te.b...@nbic.nl> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Was wondering how I can allow anonymous users to run workflows in my
> >> local Galaxy instance, as currently users need to be logged in to run
> >> workflows. I'd like drop this requirement in light of the intended
> >> publication of a workflow in a journal which demands that "Web
> >> services must not require mandatory registration by the user.". Could
> >> any you tell me how I can accomplish this?
> >>
> >> I've seen the option to use an external authentication method which
> >> could be employed to artificially 'login' anonymous users for a single
> >> session, but it appears this would also disable the normal users
> >> administration mechanisms in Galaxy, so I'm not sure this would be a
> >> good fit. Any hints on how to proceed, either via this route or
> >> otherwise, would be much appreciated.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Tim
> >
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:


Reply via email to