Skip to content

feat: support no reference tumor only cnvkit analysis #8618

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

znorgaard
Copy link
Contributor

@znorgaard znorgaard commented Jun 9, 2025

Note

The failing tests on this PR are only occurring with nextflow=24.10.2 for a single stub test and are due to a known nextflow bug, nextflow-io/nextflow#5456

The cnvkit/batch module will now support the recommended mode for running tumor only samples without a reference.cnn file.

From the docs:

If you have no normal samples to use for the reference, you can create a “flat” reference which assumes equal coverage in all bins by using the --normal/-n flag without specifying any additional BAM files:

https://cnvkit.readthedocs.io/en/stable/quickstart.html

PR checklist

  • This comment contains a description of changes (with reason).
  • If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add tests!
  • Ensure that the test works with either Docker / Singularity. Conda CI tests can be quite flaky:
    • For modules:
      • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile docker
      • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile singularity
      • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile conda

@znorgaard znorgaard marked this pull request as ready for review June 10, 2025 18:52
Copy link
Contributor

@SPPearce SPPearce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The stub test is failing because there is no stub here, can you please add one.

@znorgaard
Copy link
Contributor Author

znorgaard commented Jun 16, 2025

The stub test is failing because there is no stub here, can you please add one.

That's not actually why it's failing. In the absence of a stub the script block is executed. This is specifically a bug in nextflow=24.10.2, nextflow-io/nextflow#5456. You can prove this to yourself locally.

  1. Environment set up with mamba/conda
mamba create -n nf-core-nextflow25 nf-core nextflow=25.04.2
mamba create -n nf-core-nextflow24 nf-core nextflow=24.10.2
  1. Get to the master modules branch
cd modules
git checkout master
git pull
  1. Run tests with nextflow 24.20.2 and 25.04.2
mamba activate nf-core-nextflow25
nf-test test modules/nf-core/cnvkit/batch/tests --profile docker

SUCCESS: Executed 9 tests in 118.892s

mamba deactivate
mamba activate nf-core-nextflow24
nf-test test modules/nf-core/cnvkit/batch/tests --profile docker

FAILURE: Executed 9 tests in 114.519s (1 failed)

If you look at the failed actions they're specifically the ones for nextflow=24.20.2. The actions using latest everything pass.

That said, I'm happy to add a stub for this.

@SPPearce
Copy link
Contributor

The stub test is failing because there is no stub here, can you please add one.

That's not actually why it's failing. In the absence of a stub the script block is executed. This is specifically a bug in nextflow=24.10.2, nextflow-io/nextflow#5456. You can prove this to yourself locally.

  1. Environment set up with mamba/conda
mamba create -n nf-core-nextflow25 nf-core nextflow=25.04.2
mamba create -n nf-core-nextflow24 nf-core nextflow=24.10.2
  1. Get to the master modules branch
cd modules
git checkout master
git pull
  1. Run tests with nextflow 24.20.2 and 25.04.2
mamba activate nf-core-nextflow25
nf-test test modules/nf-core/cnvkit/batch/tests --profile docker

SUCCESS: Executed 9 tests in 118.892s

mamba deactivate
mamba activate nf-core-nextflow24
nf-test test modules/nf-core/cnvkit/batch/tests --profile docker

FAILURE: Executed 9 tests in 114.519s (1 failed)

If you look at the failed actions they're specifically the ones for nextflow=24.20.2. The actions using latest everything pass.

That said, I'm happy to add a stub for this.

Yes, that might be the case, but it will be fixed if you add a stub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants