-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
updates for metadata and manuscript finalization #2
Conversation
if `export_legend` is enabled, present the legend in the resulting Visualization. Note that there was a minor bug in the original version of the Visualizer - since the conditional was being evaluated after `export_legend` was cast to a string, it always evaluated to `True`.
@lizgehret, this should be updated for the new metadata. Here's the bucket 3/4 plot that you create in your example command - does this align with your previous version? |
Hey @gregcaporaso, I think there's a little confusion around the if I just tested this again and confirmed it's working as expected. Do you think it would be helpful to change the parameter name to prevent any confusion on what the expected behavior is? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i took a closer look at the export_legend
stuff we were discussing @gregcaporaso - here are more detailed comments.
@@ -62,8 +63,7 @@ def _bucket_util(highlighted_buckets, md, ord_2d): | |||
# HE | |||
bucket_ids_HE_week0 = \ | |||
md[(md['Bucket'] == bucket) & | |||
(md['SampleType2'] == 'Self Sample') & | |||
(md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values | |||
(md['SampleType'] == 'Human Excrement')].index.values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like the (md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values
got removed. Was this intentional?
@@ -73,17 +73,16 @@ def _bucket_util(highlighted_buckets, md, ord_2d): | |||
# bulking | |||
bucket_ids_bulk_week0 = \ | |||
md[(md['Bucket'] == bucket) & | |||
(md['SampleType2'] == 'Bulking Material') & | |||
(md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values | |||
(md['SampleType'] == 'Bulking Material')].index.values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same comment as above, it looks like (md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values
was removed here as well.
@@ -233,8 +235,7 @@ def plot_pcoa_2d(metadata_fp, ordination_fp, measure, | |||
if not highlighted_buckets: | |||
# HE wk 0 mean | |||
HE_week0 = \ | |||
md[(md['SampleType2'] == 'Self Sample') & | |||
(md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values | |||
md[(md['SampleType'] == 'Human Excrement')].index.values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same comment re: (md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values
@@ -245,8 +246,7 @@ def plot_pcoa_2d(metadata_fp, ordination_fp, measure, | |||
|
|||
# bulk wk 0 mean | |||
bulk_week0 = \ | |||
md[(md['SampleType2'] == 'Bulking Material') & | |||
(md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values | |||
md[(md['SampleType'] == 'Bulking Material')].index.values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same comment re: (md['Week'] == 0.0)].index.values
Co-authored-by: Liz Gehret <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Liz Gehret <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Liz Gehret <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Liz Gehret <[email protected]>
dc7b6a6
to
ac3f992
Compare
@lizgehret, thanks for catching the Week 0.0 issue! I think I fixed it now - we replaced those with empty cells, so checks for Here's the broken version I had yesterday for bucket 7: And here is one I'm pulling from Basecamp which I believe is the target: Note that in our metadata clean-up process, a few of the FLWC samples were removed so that is almost certainly the source of minor differences in the ordination. |
@gregcaporaso this does look better - the only thing I'm wondering about is the number of FLWC samples that are in your updated version (in comparison to the version from BC). It appears there's a higher number of that sample type than there was before - is that expected? We may want to do a quick tally of the total number we're expecting and visually see if that matches up with the updated plot. |
Replaced by #4 |
No description provided.