`freeform-summary-to-galaxy-test-plan` is silent on being handed a concrete draft and resolved test-data refs

Open Beginner friendly
#577 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Newbie friendliness
82/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Clearly specified
Activity status
Active
Domain
documentation

Research direction

Start with this Mold’s SKILL.md, then compare the analogous grounding-input guidance in changeset-to-galaxy-test-plan and the *-test-to-galaxy-test-plan siblings. Document the optional galaxy-workflow.gxwf.yml and test-data-refs.json inputs, the resulting label_source and label_status values, and when reliance must defer to implement-galaxy-workflow-test’s cross-check.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

needs-triage

Posted by an AI assistant on scottcain's behalf.

Summary

The Mold's declared Inputs are all template-era briefs, and its "Labels and fixtures are assumed,
not bound" section directs label_status: assumed and workflow.label_source: interface-brief in
every case.

Nothing in the SKILL.md anticipates the case this run actually presented: by phase 8 a concrete
gxformat2 workflow draft and a resolved test-data-refs artifact already existed in harness run
state, and both were handed to this invocation as grounding context with an instruction to keep the
plan consistent with them. The Mold gives no guidance on whether label_source should then be
draft (a concrete draft really was read) or interface-brief (its only documented input class),
nor on how label_status should reflect a label cross-checked against a real draft rather than
assumed from a brief.

Evidence

The harness passed the concrete 9-step galaxy-workflow.gxwf.yml and test-data-refs.json
alongside the Mold's normal declared inputs. Absent packaged guidance for the hybrid case, the plan
set workflow.label_source: draft and label_status: resolved throughout — every label was in fact
read from and matches the draft's own ids — which is a reasoned but undocumented departure from the
Mold's stated default behavior.

Expected

Document an optional grounding-input case in this Mold's Inputs and Procedure, as
changeset-to-galaxy-test-plan and the *-test-to-galaxy-test-plan siblings already do for their
analogous carry-forward cases: state which label_source and label_status values apply when a
caller also supplies the concrete draft and/or resolved test-data refs, and how far the plan may
rely on those artifacts before that reliance should instead defer to
implement-galaxy-workflow-test's own workflow-label cross-check.

Dominant language
TypeScript
Stars
2
Forks
3
Avg merge
19h 23m
Merged PRs (30d)
60

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from galaxyproject/foundry

All issues in galaxyproject/foundry

Similar issues

More TypeScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.