Conversation in IRC. tl;dr - it looks like it might be a GUI related
problem since the API does contain all of the datasets. Carl - any
chance you have an idea of what is going on here?

21:20 < jmchilton> avowinkel: is it possible there were duplicated
identifiers (has your discover_datasets pattern
                   changed from earlier)
21:21 < jmchilton> I'm leaning toward saying it is likely a backend
problem - since explicit output collections are
                   pretty new and you are the first person I can think
of really exercising them strenuously
21:21 < jmchilton> One way to verify though is to check the API - if
you just open localhost:<port>/api/histories
                   in your browser - find the history id
21:21 < jmchilton> then open /api/histories/<history_id>/contents and
then find the collection
21:22 < jmchilton> you should be able to open something like
21:22 < jmchilton>
/api/histories/<history_id>/contents/collections/<collection_id> -
which should show the
                   individual datasets
21:23 < avowinkel> there are defenitely no duplicate designations - if
thats the same like identifiers
21:23 < avowinkel> It's still <discover_datasets
pattern="__name_and_ext__" directory="splits" />
21:27 < jmchilton> My next question would be (if you can verify it is
a backend thing) - are the elements in the
                   dataset - the hidden elements less than a certain
HID - or are they random.
21:28 < avowinkel> via the api all 96 entries are in the collection
21:29 < avowinkel> with element_index's 0 to 95, in total 96
21:29 < avowinkel> in both lists
21:31 < avowinkel> biggest hid is 202
21:32 < avowinkel> the parent's list hid is always smaller than the
containing element's hids
22:26 < jmchilton> so you are sure every element_index from 0 to 95 is
represented? This being a GUI problem is
                   really odd - but it seems like it probably is. I
wonder if someone a div id is generated from
                   the identifiers in such a way that one is
duplicated. Seems unlikely
22:26 < jmchilton> Can you open your JavaScript console and see if
there are any JavaScript errors/
22:27 < avowinkel> well. I did grep element_index, I saw index 0 on
the top, Index 95 on the bottom. and wc -l
                   gives 96 - so yes. very sure
22:28 < avowinkel> and when I scan loosely through the list of greps,
I don't see anything odd
22:29 < avowinkel> don't want to count from 0 to 95 ^^
22:29 < jmchilton> :)
22:29 < avowinkel> for all the tests
22:30 < jmchilton> does that API response have a hidden field for the datasets?
22:31 < avowinkel> there is nothing in that file that matches "hidden"
22:31 < avowinkel> (in the history they are all hidden)
22:32 < jmchilton> I would open your web browser and check for
javascript errors next
22:34 < avowinkel> nop. nothing (Firefox 34 - ubuntu biolinux)
22:34 < jmchilton> can you send me a screenshot of the expanded collection?
22:35 < avowinkel> the newest run has 69 entries in the history
22:36 < avowinkel> what part do you want screenshotted?
22:38 < jmchilton> "When I open the list, I just can see 64 items."
The opened list in the history panel
22:40 < avowinkel> http://snag.gy/2knoI.jpg
22:43 < jmchilton> are you hand counting these lists in the browswer then?
22:47 < avowinkel> yes, hand counting
22:50 < jmchilton> I'll ping carl about this - he is the GUI
mastermind - he might have some clue
22:59 < avowinkel> jmchilton: http://pastebin.com/DcpF1QAU
22:59 < mrscribe> Title: [YAML] galaxy dataset_collection contents -
Pastebin.com (at pastebin.com)
23:00 < avowinkel> don't get confused: On the picture is a different
dataset. It doesn't have "sample_" in the name
23:04 < jmchilton> yeah - that response looks perfectly fine - really odd

-John

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alexander Vowinkel
<vowinkel.alexan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> my tool creates dynamically 96 datasets bundled into a list.
> In the history I can see the number 96 in the top as hidden datasets
> (6 shown, 96 hidden)
>
> When I open the list, I just can see 64 items.
>
> Now I run the job again and I have 96 more hidden items.
> I open the new list and can see 66 items in that new list.
>
> What is going on here?
> Is that "just" a visual bug?
> Or are my datasets affected?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander
>
> PS: I use postgres
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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