-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Fix broken marker file update #103
Comments
Duplicate Id check added to validator. Latest validator code merged to master so now on validation report mails should be more accurate. |
Rolled back the marker data in the |
Errors in the current marker file are: Validation Report
|
@BAevermann - We urgently need to fix this. Did you have time to take a look yet? (Happy to have a short call to discuss if you'd like) |
File moved here to prevent pipeline failures: https://github.com/obophenotype/brain_data_standards_ontologies/blob/7f0bc284561004093ea62cb8883b90fc826250ab/src/markers/CS202002013_markers.tsv |
Hey! So I just returned from a vacation where I did not have internet. Sorry about the delay. Can we have a call, perhaps tomorrow to discuss what need to be done? b. |
So I have a markers file with the duplicates removed. However, I was wondering If I should drop the clustername column as those seem to be changing (and will probably change in the future)? let me know, b |
We were using that column to check the compatibility of the dendrogram and the marker file. We expect clusterName to be same with the dendrogram node label. If this assumption is wrong, we can delete the column and I can update the related validation. |
If the processes are mostly automated and doesn't require manual curation (which I think in this case is true) I guess there isn't a need for the clustername (esp as what @BAevermann mentioned about names possibly changing which they already are, eg lamp5 -> lamp5-like). This label check would probably lead to a lot of failures that require fixes later down the road (I think if this gets integrated to the new build, it will already trigger a problem). So yeah, fully in agreement to remove it as long as all the processes are automated. |
Ok. Uploaded without clustername, removed duplicates and continuing with ensemblIDs as thats what mouse used? |
The most recent RF marker file commit has issues with duplicate nodes, with different markers + differences in syntax (curie vs unprefixed)
@BAevermann Can you look into this & fix?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: