I'd like to refer to an old post I found in the archive [1]
and ask if there has been some progress in this?



> Hi all,
> I was recently wondering how it might be possible for
> an output from tool A to be used as a parameter when
> calling tool B (without modifying tool B to take a data
> configuration file or anything like that).
> To clarify, I'm thinking about simple parameters like
> a single integer/float/string like "median insert size"
> or "average coverage" which map to a single input
> parameter in a downstream tool.
> Workflow parameters basic $variable support is
> similar to what I'm thinking about here, see:
> https://wiki.galaxyproject.org/DevNewsBriefs/2011_01_31
> Perhaps one day in addition to tool outputs being files,
> they can include setting $variables (local to the history),
> which could then be used within downstream tools?
> I can see this has downsides with tracking the providence
> of each variable though... thus:
> Another idea would be extra filetypes for each parameter
> type (Unix philosophy - make everything into a file), e.g.
> integer_parameter, float_parameter, ... which "Tool A"
> could define as an output, and write to. Galaxy would
> then need to offer these history entries to the user when
> a later tool (e.g. "Tool B") asked for a parameter of that
> type (e.g. an integer, or a float).
> (This idea could be extended further, with data files
> using JSON or something to hold a structured set of
> parameter values which Galaxy could then offer to
> fill later tool's inputs.)
> Crazy, or is there some mileage in this idea?
> 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