You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
rule call_peaks:
input:
"results/bed/{sample}_shifted.bed",
output:
multiext(
"results/peaks/{sample}/{sample}",
"_peaks.xls",
"_treat_pileup.bdg", # Output by -B
"_control_lambda.bdg", # This is produced even without a control input
"_peaks.narrowPeak", # Output when -broad not supplied
"_summits.bed", # Output when -broad not supplied
),
Produces the following confusing linting error (text pasted below, but screenshot added for readability):
The workflow is functional and I believe that comments added in this fashion can be useful, so I propose either:
Allow trailing comments in multi-line statements, as are allowed in python linting
Produce an error that is directly relevant to the nature of the linting violation and suggests a clear resolution (e.g. comments not allowed in multi-line statements)
2023-04-10 19:04:44 [INFO] File:[/github/workspace/workflow/rules/call_peaks.smk]
[665](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:666)
2023-04-10 19:04:44 [ERROR] Found errors in [snakefmt] linter!
[666](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:667)
2023-04-10 19:04:44 [ERROR] Error code: 123. Command output:
[667](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:668)
------
[668](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:669)
Error: In file "/github/workspace/workflow/rules/call_peaks.smk": InvalidPython: Black error:
[669](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:670)
\```
[670](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:671)
Cannot parse: 56:0: EOF in multi-line statement
[671](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:672)
\```
[672](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:673)
[673](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:674)
[INFO] In file "/github/workspace/workflow/rules/call_peaks.smk": 1 file(s) raised parsing errors 🤕
[674](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:675)
------
[675](https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/ATACCompendium/actions/runs/4660358548/jobs/8248322406?pr=26#step:6:676)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think I've encountered the same bug, also on 0.8.4. Could be helpful as an extra test case:
rulerun_nextclade:
input:
nextclade="nextclade",
dataset=lambdaw: f"data/nextclade_data/sars-cov-2{w.reference.replace('_','-')}.zip",
sequences=f"data/{database}/nextclade{{reference}}.sequences.fasta",
params:
genes=GENES_SPACE_DELIMITED,
translation_arg=lambdaw: (
# Nextclade takes a filename template in which it replaces {gene}# itself, so we want to pass thru {gene} literally to it and make# sure it isn't interpretted by the shell as a glob. We shellquote# here instead of with :q below because we don't want to pass an# empty string argument when this param is empty.shellquote(f"--output-translations=data/{database}/nextclade{w.reference}.translation_{{gene}}.upd.fasta")
ifw.reference==""else""
),
output: # <---- this is the line where snakefmt reports the error (line 185)info=f"data/{database}/nextclade{{reference}}_new_raw.tsv",
Error:
❯ snakefmt --verbose workflow/snakemake_rules/nextclade.smk
[DEBUG]
snakefmt.exceptions.InvalidPython: Black error:
Cannot parse: 185:0: EOF in multi-line statement
The following code:
Produces the following confusing linting error (text pasted below, but screenshot added for readability):
The workflow is functional and I believe that comments added in this fashion can be useful, so I propose either:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: