Question: CWL Release 1.0: Why having both default and valueFrom fields on WorkflowStepInput?
gravatar for Boris Burkov
3.6 years ago by
Boris Burkov0 wrote:

Hi, I am working on an implementation of CWL and I don't understand, why would WorkflowStepInput have 2 fields simultaneously: valueFrom and default:

I understand that valueFromallows us to hard-code the value, supplied to a step input, or make it a dynamically evaluatable expression (if we don't want this step to take its input value from workflow input or output of another step). But why would I need default field then, except that it is a legacy field from the times of draft-2?

cwl • 919 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 3.6 years ago by Michael R. Crusoe1.8k • written 3.6 years ago by Boris Burkov0

I have seen several CWL posts now, could somebody explain the relation to bioinformatics of the questions? I see that it is a very useful tool also for bioinformatics but not only, but some questions seem to be very much about the details of its implementation that are not at all bioinformatics specific.

ADD REPLYlink written 3.6 years ago by Michael Dondrup47k

Lets discuss this elsewhere -- maybe create an issue at & tag me? I'm mr-c on Github.

ADD REPLYlink written 3.6 years ago by Michael R. Crusoe1.8k
gravatar for Michael R. Crusoe
3.6 years ago by
Common Workflow Language project
Michael R. Crusoe1.8k wrote:

This was answered on GitHub:

Your hypothesis that this is left over from draft-2 makes the most sense. I'll let @tetron and @ntijanic chime in with their perspectives.

I support marking as deprecated the use of valueFrom with a constant string (which should have been Any or CWLType) and for removal in v2.0 of this usage altogether..

ADD COMMENTlink written 3.6 years ago by Michael R. Crusoe1.8k
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1055 users visited in the last hour