Galaxy: Sharing workflow / running workflows as an non-registered user

[joachimwolff]

I tried to run and or import a workflow as a non-registered user and I get the error You must be logged in to to import a workflow.. Also tried to access it via id directly but there I got API authentication required for this request.

Is there a way to use workflows as a non-registerd user that I (and @erasche :) ) do no know so far? If no, this would be a really nice to have feature especially if you want to use the Galaxy platform as a basis for a publication. Many magazines require that users don't have to register.

Thanks for considering.

[nsoranzo]

That would only be possible if we allow a user to run a shared workflow without importing it.

[hexylena]

I'd certainly be in favour of that. (It would help get closer to my ideal that users shouldn't be duplicating a workflow unless they plan to edit it/need it to be forever unchanged.) Otherwise it gets out of sync with whoever is actively developing the workflow.

[martenson]

@joachimjacob anons are not allowed to build/operate on workflows at all, I am in favor of considering a change though.

However does it makes sense with the limited quota they usually get on public instances?

[joachimwolff]

It makes sense because journals require that it is not mandatory to register. I agree that users cannot do much than but this is irrelevant as long as the journal is happy and we can publish.

[martenson]

So if they couldn't run it as anons what does the journal need in order to publish? See an image of the workflow builder interface?

[hexylena]

It's less the journal needs to publish and more that the reviewers need to use/explore the tool in order to review in order to publish. Seeing an image of the workflow doens't give the same experience as being able to run the tools in a pre-configured workflow where reviewers can't screw it up

[martenson]

@erasche Right, so this is about anons being able to execute an actual run of a workflow from manuscript? They will often encounter the quota limit, won't they?

Could they be given a temporary credentials instead?

[nsoranzo]

@martenson Quota limit can be configured (or removed) by the Galaxy admin to allow reviewers to complete a test analysis. Temporary credentials can probably be traced to the reviewer.

[hexylena]

exactly as @nsoranzo said on both points. we configure a quota but expect that a reviewer running the predefined workflow on the provided test datasets will not reach that value.

[martenson]

Thanks for explanations. Now I think this is decent use case for allowing anons to manipulate with workflows. We can save all the info with their session like anything else.

[hexylena]

Just a clarification, I'm not proposing that anons should be able to manipulate (I'm reading this word as "edit") workflows, only run existing ones. Maybe it's easier to implement that way though so whatever works. (But I still dream of view+run-only as the default published workflow running mode.)

[martenson]

I think we should take this further and remove the registration restriction of workflow creating/editing/importing/running. Afaik workflows are underused and this could help with exposure.