Update the doc and use "true" as base command for the metadata test #184
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
kinow
force-pushed
the
update-metadata-test-docs
branch
from
dc17c50 to
a269308
Compare
70 tasks
mr-c
approved these changes
Jun 21, 2022
mr-c
force-pushed
the
update-metadata-test-docs
branch
from
a269308 to
b93d546
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Was thinking about common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language#743, and my initial thought was to use the output of
--pack metadata.cwlwhich would include the metadata. But couldn't figure out a way to reference that in the test output (tried to think in a way to use some JS expression for that, but I don't think the metadata is loaded in the JS expr context.)So I went with the other alternative mentioned in the issue, updating the test documentation to show the intention of testing the metadata. I think the previous doc could be misleading, making the reader think it was about printing the output of
catand maybe using it in the test…Or maybe there's some better way to update that test?