Added a required input and output format for workflow engines. #357
Conversation
| accepted by any workflow engine. It is the input format that is used for | ||
| performing language compliance tests on the engine. | ||
|
|
||
| In this common format, workflow inputs are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be usable for both workflow and task inputs/outputs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is in the workflow inputs chapter. Can you clarify what you mean by task inputs in this context?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some workflow engines (miniwdl, dxWDL) support running individual tasks in addition to workflows. This input specification should be the same for both workflows and inputs, and it should be required for any workflow engine that allows running tasks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is good. My only comment is to consider shortening the concept name from Common WDL JSON Input Format to JSON Input Format. It makes it more readable, and reduces potential confusion with the "Common Workflow Language". After all, this document is the authoritative document on the WDL language, so the words common and WDL should be superfluous. Any changes an engine makes are not standard/common by definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@orodeh Very good suggestion. It was also a bit tedious to type.
@jdidion, running individual tasks is a feature that is not listed in the spec. So workflow engines can do as they please with regards to running tasks. We can of course make running tasks part of the spec, but that will be another PR entirely.
|
@mlin, @cjllanwarne , @orodeh as engine implementers, what are your opinions on this? Are these workable input and output formats? |
|
I removed the Common WDL stuff. Is this okay for everyone to get into voting? |
|
I think so. |
|
👍 |
3 similar comments
|
👍 |
|
👍 |
|
👍 |
patmagee
added
Spec Change
Waiting for implementation
Ready to merge
and removed
Voting Active
Waiting for implementation
labels
This is a result from the OpenWDL hackathon discussion on WDL compliance testing.
To make it easier to test compliance all workflow engines should be able to process the same input format and supply the same output format.
It was decided to use the JSON format for both in- and output formats for the following reasons:
We decided to rename the JSON input format to something other than "Cromwell-style inputs" because we value our engine diversity 🌈 .
Checklist