If one tool is failing because of permissions problems with your input datasets, then other tools will too. There are other options but not exact options and most are in that same tool group. But reviewing again that doesn’t address the root issue. Permissions to view your data linked from this forum have nothing to do with you having permissions problems – and this error doesn’t seem to actually be that. I misread the error/actual issue, apologies. The problem is no output.
We need more details to help you. It could be a bug or a usage issue, or possibly the workflow has problems when run under the current release of Galaxy. Have you tried running the tool using the example data in the publication? If it works, then there is likely a content or format issue with your own data.
The full error message is sometimes nested on the Job Details page (what you posted here) inside the linked
stdout files. Other times the bug report has the information. You don’t have to submit a bug report – it can be just viewed for troubleshooting. Reviewing those places can also help you to solve problems. Sometimes an internet search with the important parts of an error message finds help for a usage solution – even if that Q&A happened outside of Galaxy.
If you need help after that, please post back the full tool name that includes the version, note which server you are working on (actually usegalaxy.eu?), and post the error messages – not links to the error messages – those cannot be read by anyone but you. If you have modified the workflow – it can be posted back as a shared link (Workflows > use the pull-down menu > Share > Create the share link). If you just post back the URL in the browser that you see – to anything – others won’t be able to review it (external permissions problems again). Use Galaxy’s share function to grant others the ability to review.
If you want to keep this private, then it might be a good idea to submit the bug report to the EU administrators. Include a link to this topic in the comments (it can be read by anyone since this topic is already public) – plus any other details.
We should keep the conversation in this thread for now, since the original problem was misinterpreted. We can break it out if needed later, depending on your reply. Thanks!
Ping @nsoranzo (he is one of the authors of that publication/workflow and may have more advice) ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29425291/