Just as a follow up on this for everyone using the workflow API, I
have opened a WIP PR to completely replace step ids with the step
order index in the workflows API so this confusion won't occur anymore
and the deprecated and modern endpoints work much more similarly:
Hi all,
Here’s a mail for heads up and googleable error message in case someone finds a
similar error and scratches her/his head.
So (some time) after the very nice API class we had at GCC2015 I am now trying
my hand at running workflows using Bioblend. I had some frustration trying to
invoke
Thanks John, I found indeed the step order ids in the result from
export_workflow_json. Helps a lot and now I won’t need to use soon-deprecated
stuff.
cheers,
—
Jorrit Boekel
Proteomics systems developer
BILS / Lehtiö lab
Scilifelab Stockholm, Sweden
> On 19 Nov 2015, at 15:37, John Chilton
The workflow API is the only place where we expose unencoded IDs and
we really shouldn't be doing it. I would instead focus on adapting to
using step_ids - they really should be more stable and usable. Order
index has lots of advantages
- You can build a request for a given workflow and apply it
