Updating tools/bowtie2 from version 2.5.3 to 2.5.4

[gxydevbot]

Hello! This is an automated update of the following tool: tools/bowtie2. I created this PR because I think the tool's main dependency is out of date, i.e. there is a newer version available through conda.

I have updated tools/bowtie2 from version 2.5.3 to 2.5.4.

Project home page: http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2

For any comments, queries or criticism about the bot, not related to the tool being updated in this PR, please create an issue here.

[bgruening]

 .. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_id_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select
.. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_sm_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select
.. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_lb_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select
.. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_id_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select
.. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_sm_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select
.. WARNING (ConditionalParamTypeBool): Conditional [read_group_lb_conditional] first param of type="boolean" is discouraged, use a select

Thats the shared macro. @bernt-matthias do you remember how we fixed this the last time without touching all tools using this macro?

[mvdbeek]

I would very strongly suggest to ignore this and maybe decrease the log level to info. If you make the switch at a minimum the tool state in all workflows using this tool will be invalid on the next update, but also lot's of cheeath got broken by this change since you don't actually have boolean values anymore in a select. It's also easy to fix on the UI side: If we have a boolean in a conditional, render it as a select (this was the reason for that recommendation).

[bernt-matthias]

We can either add ConditionalParamTypeBool as linter exception (i.e. merge this #6184). Or decrease the linter level in order to have this for all repos without any additional efforts.

What would be your preference @mvdbeek ?

[mvdbeek]

Or decrease the linter level in order to have this for all repos without any additional efforts.

This, or just remove it completely. It's not even an info thing IMO.

[bgruening]

Its a IUC recommendation and we are here in the IUC repo. I think a stringent UI and a good UX has some big benefits.

If we can merge those tools on exceptions and they get still deployed that is fine, isn't it? Why would we remove this if we want to encourage our recommendations?

I understand that for broadly used tools big parameter changes have a large downstream effect. And in this case here its probably not worthwhile.
In general, I'm no in favour of abandon our best practices just because a tool is frequently used and we are afraid of upstream work.

[bernt-matthias]

I agree with @mvdbeek .. we should

• change the Galaxy UI, i.e. such that the conditionals are rendered that same way with a boolean or a select parameter (I opened an issue Render the parameter of a conditional always as select galaxy#18759)
• adapt guidelines
• adapt linter.

[gxydevbot]

There are new updates, they have been integrated to the PR, check the file diff.

[gxydevbot]

There are new updates, they have been integrated to the PR, check the file diff.

[gxydevbot]

There are new updates, they have been integrated to the PR, check the file diff.