-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 303
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
✨New Feature: Remove Gene Tracks from Oncoprint #4861
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for cbioportalfrontend ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
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.
@SAHU-01 Thanks again for working on this!
- There's a small bug when removing the last gene. Gives an error page. Not sure what the behavior should be. Maybe the remove track button should be disabled when there's only one gene?
@inodb thank you for pointing out the bug, I had missed this edge case, as per your suggestion now, if there is more than 1 gene track present we can delete the tracks, else the "Remove Track" option is disabled when only 1 gene track is present. |
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.
@SAHU-01 Thanks so much for fixing this so quickly!
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.
@SAHU-01 sorry @alisman found some more bugs:
- When using the merged track feature, see e.g. this query. All the genes become unmerged when one gene is removed. The expected behavior would be that 1) when removing the merged track, the entire merged track is removed and 2) when removing the one gene, the existing merged track stays
- Other OQL modifiers also get removed when removing a track, see e.g. this query
- Same issue for
DATATYPES
, see this query
The documentation for OQL can be found at https://cbioportal.org/oql if helpful
Thanks in advance for looking at it!
@SAHU-01 for OQL modifiers, I still see the problem IF i remove the first track (BRAF) though it works for subsequent tracks |
@alisman on removing (BRAF), though the modifier (MUT AMP HOMDEL) of the other 2 tracks are not visible, but they still work perfectly, the thing is, when any track is removed it's modifiers are also removed from URL but in this case, in the URL the default modifier (MUT AMP HOMDEL) are not present so after (BRAF) is removed, even though the default modifier(MUT AMP HOMDEL) works as usual they are not visible in UI after deletion. You can see it in this console where on deleting each track the sublabel shared details about the OQL modifier present When you try removing one of the other 2 tracks first, it's works perfectly because then each track and that track's sublabel is independently pushed to URL like below, I thought specifically pushing sublabels with remaining tracks, when only default tracks remain won't be wise, but if you suggest to push sublabels in case of defaults then I can modify accordingly. |
@SAHU-01 thanks for your careful analysis here. I am going to need to think about the right thing to do and discuss with product team. These are probably edge cases we're worried about so maybe it's ok not worry about them. Stay tuned. |
eeffa8f
to
1aae7cd
Compare
Fix cBioPortal/cbioportal#10612 (see https://help.github.com/en/articles/closing-issues-using-keywords)
Describe changes proposed in this pull request:
removable:true
in DeltaUtils.tsgene_list
Checks
Any screenshots or GIFs?
If this is a new visual feature please add a before/after screenshot or gif
here with e.g. Giphy CAPTURE or Peek
Before:
After:
Notify reviewers
@inodb @alisman
Read our Pull request merging
policy. It can help to figure out who worked on the
file before you. Please use
git blame <filename>
to determine thatand notify them either through slack or by assigning them as a reviewer on the PR