Skip to content
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

Requested output format changes #38

Open
andrewdavidsmith opened this issue Sep 2, 2022 · 6 comments
Open

Requested output format changes #38

andrewdavidsmith opened this issue Sep 2, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@andrewdavidsmith
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey Guilherme.

Thanks for the quick reply! Great that you've gotten the problem fixed. However, I was hoping to run falco as part of general pipeline, and we are relying on conda for managing the environment and I'd like to keep the custom parts down to a bare minimum.

Could I ask why you don't include a more stable output form, perhaps as a supplement to the fastqc like output, and write a specific falco module for multiQC? (https://multiqc.info/docs/#custom-content).

Maybe this could be a more stable way to integrate into multiQC, and also have falco being q part of the list of modules available in multiQC (raising awareness).
As we are developing pipelines for running in cloud based pipelines, core-minutes become important, and having a fast tool (like falco) is really high up on the priority list.

Originally posted by @pbiology in #7 (comment)

@nick-youngblut
Copy link

@andrewdavidsmith does falco output work directly with multiQC? It appears to based on the use of falco + multiQC in the nf-core/demultiplex pipeline, but just providing the path to the falco output summary/data files to multiQC does nothing (no output from multiQC).

A bit of docs in the README on how to integrate falco with multiQC would be great.

If falco cannot be directly integrated with multiQC, then it would be helpful to have such a warning in the README, given that developers would like to balance the trade-off of switching to falco from fastqc versus losing (simple) multiQC integration.

@andrewdavidsmith
Copy link
Collaborator Author

andrewdavidsmith commented Oct 30, 2023

@nick-youngblut I can't answer your question right now. I've heard of people using it seemingly smoothly with multiQC, but I never personally have done it, so I can't say how easy it was, or what kind of issues were present. I'll try to look into it.

Most likely I'll try to add a comment in the README about this fact -- i.e., my own continued lack of knowledge on this issue, and phrased as a warning. Obviously I'm happy to receive any input you can provide if you do push forward with this.

@nick-youngblut
Copy link

I was able to get multiQC working as described by @sklages in #13. A simple description of this in the README could help users get MutliQC up-and-running with falco, without the need for trial-and-error or searching through the issues for #13

@adRn-s
Copy link

adRn-s commented Mar 14, 2024

This should be considered a bug, given that it's claimed to be a drop-in replacement to fastqc. The first thing anyone would like to see are command arguments, and the second one, would be using the output with downstream tools seamlessly. MultiQC is far too popular to be ignored...

PS. Thanks for your amazing work!

@andrewdavidsmith andrewdavidsmith added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 14, 2024
@andrewdavidsmith
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@adRn-s I am labeling this as a bug, according to your suggestion -- I'm very happy to consider a PR.

@Rohit-Satyam
Copy link

Hi I found the Falco paper today and I am impressed that it is so fast. But yes it would be really helpful if we could use MultiQC on the output files as easily as we could when using fastqc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants