On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> I retitled this since the TestToolShed does seem to be running tests
>> regularly again. However, I still have a fair number failing with the
>> cryptic status "Exception: History in error state."
>> I guess the logging changes John tried are not propagated to the
>> user-facing output on the ToolShed, but might still offer you some
>> clues?
>> It appears from the stack trace to be something with uploading
>> the test input files into the new history?
>> My current list of tools with failing tests is:
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blast2go
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blastxml_to_top_descr
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/clinod
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/fastq_paired_unpaired
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/get_orfs_or_cdss
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/mira_assembler
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/ncbi_blast_plus
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/nlstradamus
>> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/seq_primer_clip
>> I have updated some of the tools I listed below (in the older email),
>> so their latest revision has not yet been tested.
>> Regards,
>> Peter
> Hi guys,
> The good news is my list of failing tools has shrunk to the following,
> none of which seem to have been tested yet in December, stuck
> with "Exception: Job in error state.":
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blast2go
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blastxml_to_top_descr
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/clinod
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/mira_assembler
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/nlstradamus
> Meanwhile, on the main tool,  "Exception: Job in error state."
> and not yet tested in December:
> https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/blast2go
> It would be nice to have a more informative error here...

Ugh - yes it clearly would - very sorry about that.


> Have these tools been automatically earmarked not to be retested?
> Note that some tools have been tested earlier this month:
> I also have a legitimate failure for missing tests, run 2014-12-09,
> https://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/ncbi_blast_plus

Interesting... some tests did run though? Does the framework not
report passing tests - seems like it would be hard to know if it
working in that case.


> And again, a legitimate failure for some missing tests on the
> main Tool Shed, also run on 2014-12-09,
> https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/devteam/ncbi_blast_plus
> Regards,
> Peter
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:

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:

Reply via email to