Add base resource update #165
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 9 commits
June 28, 2024 14:33
yashpatel6
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (non-blocking): I'd suggest adding a separate test case for running with the resource updater
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done!
/hot/software/pipeline/pipeline-call-gSV/Nextflow/development/unreleased/mmootor-add-base-resource-update/20240628T234620Z.log
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Add base resource update feature.
Closes #163
Testing Results
NFTest Manta was run with twice the default CPU and memory allocation and the run time was significantly reduced to
1mon A-mini sample indicating a successful integration of the base resource update feature. The same NFTest without any base resource updates had a runtime of7m.NFTest log:
Checklist
I have read the code review guidelines and the code review best practice on GitHub check-list.
I have reviewed the Nextflow pipeline standards.
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.
I have added my name to the contributors listings in the
manifestblock in thenextflow.configas part of this pull request, am listedalready, or do not wish to be listed. (This acknowledgement is optional.)
I have added the changes included in this pull request to the
CHANGELOG.mdunder the next release version or unreleased, and updated the date.I have updated the version number in the
metadata.yamlandmanifestblock of thenextflow.configfile following semver, or the version number has already been updated. (Leave it unchecked if you are unsure about new version number and discuss it with the infrastructure team in this PR.)I have tested the pipeline on at least one A-mini sample with
run_delly = true,run_manta = true,run_qc = true. Forrun_delly = true, I have tested 'variant_type' set togSV,gCNV, and both. The paths to the test config files and output directories are captured above in the Testing Results section.