Make input type optional

[aybeshlikyan]

Checklist

Formatting

• I have read the code review guidelines and the code review best practice on GitHub check-list.

• The name of the branch is meaningful and well formatted following the standards, using [AD_username (or 5 letters of AD if AD is too long)]-[brief_description_of_branch].

• I have set up or verified the branch protection rule following the github standards before opening this pull request.

File Updates

• I have ensured that the version number update follows the versioning standards.

• I have updated the version number/dependencies and added my name to the maintainer list in the Dockerfile.

• I have updated the version number/feature changes in the README.md.

• I have updated the version number and added my name to the contributors list in the metadata.yaml.

• I have added the changes included in this pull request to the CHANGELOG.md under the next release version or unreleased, and updated the date.

• I have drafted the new version release with any additions/changes and have linked the CHANGELOG.md in the release.

Docker Hub Auto Build Rules

• I have created automated build rules following this page and I have not manually pushed this Docker image to the blcdsdockerregistry on Docker Hub.

Docker Image Testing

• I have tested the Docker image with the docker run command as described below.

Test the Docker image with at least one sample. Verify the new Docker image works using:

docker run -u $(id -u):$(id -g) –w <working-directory> -v <directory-you-want-to-mount>:<how-you-want-to-mount-it-within-the-docker> --rm <docker-image-name> <command-to-the-docker-with-all-parameters>

My command:

docker build -t test-pipeval . -f docker/Dockerfile
docker run -it --rm -v /Users/abeshlikyan/Infrastructure/public-tool-PipeVal/tests:/tool/tests test-pipeval pytest: All existing tests pass.
Manual testing from the command line on sample files passed as well.

Description

Closes #51. Makes -t optional and sets default to file-input.

[tyamaguchi-ucla]

Looks good to me! @jarbet I think this update should resolve the issue we touched on?

[jarbet]

Looks good to me! @jarbet I think this update should resolve the issue we touched on?

I think so.

@aybeshlikyan: Will this PR now allow run_validate_PipeVal to handle a channel input of cardinality 1? For example, only sending run_validate_PipeVal a channel/vector of file paths? If so, then I think this will solve the issues I'm having here.

In the past, @aybeshlikyan and @yashpatel6 sent run_validate_PipeVal an input channel of cardinality 2: mode (file type) and file_to_validate (file path). Will this PR still support your previous calls to run_validate_PipeVal, or will that code need to be updated?

[yashpatel6]

Looks good!