Hey Jorrit,

Thanks for pointing this out; the workflow engine definitely shouldn't
behave like this.  I'll take a look and see what we can do to allow
parameters named 'type' :)

-Dannon

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Jorrit Boekel <jorrit.boe...@scilifelab.se>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just a heads-up, I had a tool.xml file in which a command line was called
> with a parameter called —type. I therefore set
> <param name=“type” type=“select > etc etc. to do:
> command —type $type
>
> Big mistake. This lead to errors as soon as the tool was modified in the
> workflow (set as runtime triggered an error for me), due to the fact that
> the workflow module type was not one of tool, data input, data collection,
> but was instead the value of the type param which was currently filled in.
>
> Now I know not to do this, hope you already did.
>
> cheers,
> —
> Jorrit Boekel
> Proteomics systems developer
> BILS / Lehtiö lab
> Scilifelab Stockholm, Sweden
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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:
>   https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
>
> To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
>   http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
___________________________________________________________
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:
  https://lists.galaxyproject.org/

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
  http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/

Reply via email to