Thanks for the report Alexander. Carl has fixed this problem in dev
with https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/pull/431. Thanks Carl!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:11 PM, John Chilton <jmchil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 22:27 < 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
> 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
> 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
> 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?
>> 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:
>> To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
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: