Add nf-test to unzip module

[jennylsmith]

PR checklist

Adds nf-tests to unzip module.

• This comment contains a description of changes (with reason).
• If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add tests!
• If you've added a new tool - have you followed the module conventions in the contribution docs
• If necessary, include test data in your PR.
• Remove all TODO statements.
• Emit the versions.yml file.
• Follow the naming conventions.
• Follow the parameters requirements.
• Follow the input/output options guidelines.
• Add a resource label
• Use BioConda and BioContainers if possible to fulfil software requirements.
• Ensure that the test works with either Docker / Singularity. Conda CI tests can be quite flaky:
  • For modules:
    • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile docker
    • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile singularity
    • nf-core modules test <MODULE> --profile conda
  • For subworkflows:
    • nf-core subworkflows test <SUBWORKFLOW> --profile docker
    • nf-core subworkflows test <SUBWORKFLOW> --profile singularity
    • nf-core subworkflows test <SUBWORKFLOW> --profile conda

[mashehu]

any reason why you chose a different input to the old pytests versions for this module?

and because they are very similar, do you mind to also convert the unzipfiles module in this PR?

[jennylsmith]

any reason why you chose a different input to the old pytests versions for this module?

and because they are very similar, do you mind to also convert the unzipfiles module in this PR?

@mashehu My only reasoning to change the input was that the process itself is generic, so I thought it might make more sense to use a generic filetype input. I also thought it might be a smaller and so quicker to run, but I admit I didn't compare file sizes directly. Is it preferred to change it back to the original input dataset from pytest?

Happy to convert the unzipfiles nf-tests to this PR as well.

[mashehu]

Getting there 🙂

[mashehu]

@mashehu My only reasoning to change the input was that the process itself is generic, so I thought it might make more sense to use a generic filetype input. I also thought it might be a smaller and so quicker to run, but I admit I didn't compare file sizes directly. Is it preferred to change it back to the original input dataset from pytest?

Okay, yes, makes total sense.

[CarsonJM]

@jennylsmith LGTM! I think you should be good to merge it!

Stale

[SPPearce]

@jennylsmith , can you update the branch with the changes from the master and see if the tests pass? I don't have access to your branch to do that.

[SPPearce]

@jennylsmith, are you able to update your branch with the most recent changes please.

[SPPearce]

Incorpated changes to #5897