Guidelines for additional output parameters

[bernt-matthias]

In a recent (short) discussion (galaxyproject/tools-iuc#4006 (comment)) we were wondering what's the best way to choose which outputs a tool should produce:

• multiple booleans
• one select

Wondering if we should try to standardize this in the IUC guidelines?

For me a select is favorable for the following reasons:

• its more compact (except for one output)
• one can contrain them, e.g. requiering at least one (min="1") or requiring exactly one (type="radio")

Here is how the two options look:

Maybe add thumbs up/down reactions to the issue if you support/not support standardization... or add comments with arguments.

[bernt-matthias]

Copied from: galaxyproject/tools-iuc#4008 .. Comments from there were

@bgruening: I prefer the multi-select.

@wm75: One disadvantage of the select is that you cannot provide separate help/command line args for the options (as visible in the screenshots).

@wm75: Also, restrictions on the select can only be enforced in the command section (after the user hits Execute). So it's not very clear what the allowed combinations are.

@wm75 It's also easy to abuse the one select box like e.g. here:

Clearly the VCF or BCF output is the main output of Delly, while the other two are optional outputs. The single select box doesn't convey that at all.

[wm75]

Thanks @bernt-matthias for copying over the comments.

To be clear, I'm +1 on using a select box to deal with all optional/secondary outputs of a tool in most cases.
Just saying that it might be hard to standardize.

[bernt-matthias]

@wm75: One disadvantage of the select is that you cannot provide separate help/command line args for the options (as visible in the screenshots).

That's true

@wm75: Also, restrictions on the select can only be enforced in the command section (after the user hits Execute). So it's not very clear what the allowed combinations are.

I guess one or more validators should also do the trick. But the user still only gets the feedback after pressing execute .. I think.

To be clear, I'm +1 on using a select box to deal with all optional/secondary outputs of a tool in most cases.
Just saying that it might be hard to standardize.

So we might just make it a preference?