Wil Koetsier wrote: > Dear Stian and Alan, > >> We should probably make it so that if there's an example value, we >> should rather fallback to using the example rather than the >> RuntimeException when the user did not provide that input. >> Alternatively we would need a second 'Default value' annotation on the >> input port. I'll note a bug report about this issue. > > I have been thinking about this solution (just thinking out loud here, > I hope this feedback helps). Simply falling back to the example value > would be very convenient if you wish to leave a certain input port > optional. But if a user set value is required and the user somehow > manages to forget it (I can imagine this could happen in more > complicted workflows), there will be no error specifically stating > 'user, you forgot to give that value'.
The run dialog planned for Taverna 2.2 will now moan if you don't set a value on a port. > For this reason I would go with > implementing an 'default value' field. The workflow will fallback to > this value, find that none was set and report a missing value error. I agree that a default value would be useful. It's also important not to mix up the idea of a default value with an example (of an actual) value. [snip] > Cheers, > Wil Alan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ taverna-users mailing list [email protected] [email protected] Web site: http://www.taverna.org.uk Mailing lists: http://www.taverna.org.uk/about/contact-us/
