Skip to content

Improve validation of run_accessions IDs within sample IDs#484

Merged
jfy133 merged 4 commits into
devfrom
improve-validation
May 16, 2024
Merged

Improve validation of run_accessions IDs within sample IDs#484
jfy133 merged 4 commits into
devfrom
improve-validation

Conversation

@jfy133

@jfy133 jfy133 commented May 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Should hopefully close #483

PR checklist

  • 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 pipeline conventions in the contribution docs
  • If necessary, also make a PR on the nf-core/taxprofiler branch on the nf-core/test-datasets repository.
  • Make sure your code lints (nf-core lint).
  • Ensure the test suite passes (nf-test test main.nf.test -profile test,docker).
  • Check for unexpected warnings in debug mode (nextflow run . -profile debug,test,docker --outdir <OUTDIR>).
  • Usage Documentation in docs/usage.md is updated.
  • Output Documentation in docs/output.md is updated.
  • CHANGELOG.md is updated.
  • README.md is updated (including new tool citations and authors/contributors).

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented May 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

nf-core lint overall result: Passed ✅ ⚠️

Posted for pipeline commit c66dc4e

+| ✅ 258 tests passed       |+
!| ❗   2 tests had warnings |!
Details

❗ Test warnings:

  • pipeline_todos - TODO string in main.nf: Only uncomment below if logic in toolCitationText/toolBibliographyText has been filled!
  • pipeline_todos - TODO string in ci.yml: You can customise CI pipeline run tests as required

✅ Tests passed:

Run details

  • nf-core/tools version 2.14.1
  • Run at 2024-05-16 10:59:19

@jfy133

jfy133 commented May 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@nf-core-bot fix linting

@sofstam sofstam self-requested a review May 8, 2024 20:48

@sofstam sofstam left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested and it detects if a run_accession and a sample Id are not unique.

@Midnighter

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm just wondering, are there good cases for when a run accession should not be globally unique, but only within a sample?

@jfy133

jfy133 commented May 16, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Tested and it detects if a run_accession and a sample Id are not unique.

Do you approve then @sofstam ?

@jfy133

jfy133 commented May 16, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm just wondering, are there good cases for when a run accession should not be globally unique, but only within a sample?

Depends on naming schemes basically... My definition of a run was based on ENA run accessions where they were were unique. But @sofstam had an issue where they were not unique, as they were interpreted as a sequencing run accession (so in the table, the same sequencing run was shared across all the samples).

@sofstam

sofstam commented May 16, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I approve, shall but shall we merge the template first?

@sofstam sofstam self-requested a review May 16, 2024 07:38

@sofstam sofstam left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The linting should be fixed before merging!

@jfy133 jfy133 merged commit c1e643f into dev May 16, 2024
@jfy133 jfy133 deleted the improve-validation branch May 16, 2024 11:46
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.

4 participants