Fix Fusion symlink resolution with nested files#4726
Fix Fusion symlink resolution with nested files#4726bentsherman wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ben Sherman <bentshermann@gmail.com>
✅ Deploy Preview for nextflow-docs-staging canceled.
|
|
@marcodelapierre this one would be a good inaugural PR for the "merge to master" effort. It is a simple bugfix and does not affect the core runtime, only some auxiliary logic for Fusion symlinks. If you can review it and approve, I will merge it 👀 |
|
I was attempting the test case described above. However I am getting an unrelated error, both with stable Nextflow and this build: What am I missing? (If I leave Fusion disabled, the example works) |
|
Just confirming I have the above issue when testing Fusion, with any of stable, edge, build from this PR. Both on x86 and ARM, also tried with a different container. Fusion version 2.2.13 (latest). I must be missing something trivial in the config, but cannot spot it. |
|
I just uploaded the test case to github so that you can run it out-of-the-box: I couldn't reproduce your issue, but maybe you can try this example. Maybe you weren't mounting the AWS credentials into the container Even stranger though, I just ran the test case with 23.10.1 and didn't reproduce the original issue of the symlinks not being resolved. When I list the work directory in S3, there is no @jordeu have you changed the behavior of Fusion symlinks? the above test case used to create Fusion symlinks but now it doesn't |
|
Thanks for the extra details Ben, by defining workDir and amazon credentials properly I could run the tests. I confirm your finding with Nextflow 23.10.1 stable and any of the example workflows in #4725: all inputs and output files are published, and no I see this functional behaviour is also consistent with what a user reports in #4725. I also tested the PR and confirm that the patch enables to correctly identify Fusion symlinks when running the workaround workflow in #4725 . I am therefore approving the PR, as it effectively patches targeted case. Of course, the key question remains of what change is now making the sample workflows to work. |
|
False alarm, I set the publish mode to "copy" in the test which is another workaround Fixing that, I now see the |
|
@pditommaso google batch logging test failed again |
|
This looks different |
|
Now the google test failed on 21 but not 11 🤔 |
|
Consider closing in favor of #4967 (comment) |
Partial solution to #4725 (full solution also requires #3933)
Test case:
Where
filesshould be populated with some text files. Run with Fusion enabled.