Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expand post blast recovery #21

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
May 5, 2020
Merged

Expand post blast recovery #21

merged 20 commits into from
May 5, 2020

Conversation

bkohrn
Copy link
Collaborator

@bkohrn bkohrn commented Apr 29, 2020

This will expand options for post-blast recovery, and will clarify some related outputs.

Brendan Kohrn and others added 17 commits April 22, 2020 17:02
The first release with this must be a new MAJOR release, as it
changes the API for recovery scripts.
1. Create new test data set that can better deomonstrate the BLAST filter
2. Create new test reference / blastDB to match new test dataset
3. Add gitignore rule to ignore user-generated recovery scripts
4. Fix recovery scripts for recoverAll, recoverAmbig, and recoverWrongSpecies
5. Remove chrM_recovery, which is a custom recovery script from our lab
6. Add extra tests to the test config file

Next commit will be a substantial restructuring of the retrieveSummary
script to make it compatible with runing multiple parameters for the
same sample.
NOTE: New Bug: There seems to be a plotting issue in the Depth per
Target plot where zero-depth positions are not represented as being
zero depth.
Take 1
Hotfix for expand_post_blast_recover
Copy link
Member

@scottrk scottrk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inclined to remove the ChrM_recovery script. It's somewhat unique for the mouse mtDNA, plus it assumes a chr__ naming scheme which isn't universal.

Copy link
Member

@scottrk scottrk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we change back to pure png rendering or do you want to under these changes after this release. I'm fine with either, but since we're still in the dev cycle, it may be worth doing now. Up to you.

@bkohrn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bkohrn commented Apr 29, 2020

I'm trying to be better about only making one set of changes in each branch, but we could do that.

@bkohrn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bkohrn commented Apr 29, 2020

My main concern is: that change is unrelated to the primary purpose of this branch.

@scottrk
Copy link
Member

scottrk commented Apr 29, 2020

That's a good point. It doesn't change functionality, just the complexity of the code, so lower priority. Let's get this out and merge in a fix later.

@bkohrn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bkohrn commented Apr 29, 2020

I have one more branch I want to finish before we go to v2.0.0. Actually, if we're going to do a v1.1.0 release, we should do that before we finish merging this branch.

@bkohrn bkohrn linked an issue Apr 29, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
@bkohrn bkohrn merged commit f955fad into dev May 5, 2020
@bkohrn bkohrn deleted the expand_post_blast_recovery branch June 3, 2020 16:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

summary blast statistics unclear
2 participants