opengeospatial / opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes
Ad-hoc CWL workflows not applicable
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- AsciiDoc
- Stars
- 63
- Forks
- 46
- Avg merge
- 2d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
Using CWL for describing workflows allows more flexibility that then Part 3 Nested Processes approach (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/issues/445).
Part 3 mentions a "Requirement for CWL ad-hoc workflow definition". However, that makes no sense, since "ad-hoc" implies submitting the execution values directly, whereas CWL is a Workflow Definition, similarly to Process Description. CWL are not convenient with injected values. They instead rely on a separate "execution/job" document, similar to the OAP's Execution Request.
How to provide both of these documents simultaneously needs to be addressed to make CWL definitions actually usable.
More details here:
Comment with Possible Workarounds:
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the Part 3 Nested Processes section and its requirement for CWL ad-hoc workflow definition. Review the linked Weaver issue and workaround discussion; the work is done when the specification clearly defines how a CWL workflow definition and its execution/job document are supplied together.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- api
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100