-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Dev #78
Merged
Merged
Dev #78
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-authored-by: dpbastedo <45338596+dpbastedo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: dpbastedo <45338596+dpbastedo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: dpbastedo <45338596+dpbastedo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: dpbastedo <45338596+dpbastedo@users.noreply.github.com>
updated documentation and parameters.
added locidex test data
…rameters updated ext.containers to ext.parameters
Fixed the elvis expression, updated the schema and added a regex to validation strings in the locidex command.
set the return value to null for an erroneous allele scheme specification. Additionally I updated the schema json regex for lx_report_prop to specify allowed characters.
Locidex Integration
Update/staramr
…ication-and-running-staramr-pipeline-fails 69 when skipping species classification and running staramr pipeline fails
Release/0.2.0
|
mattheww95
reviewed
May 14, 2024
mattheww95
reviewed
May 14, 2024
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.
PR looks good, just reviewing the parameter changes to locidex.
If locidex receives a fasta that has been processed with extract it no longer needs to be annotated with pyrodigal as the sample has been blasted against the database to extract relevent hits. To verify that results generated in locidex match what is tested, this is the preferred route forward. However as databases will get larger in may be more cost effective pass in a genbank file or just annotate the fasta directly, however this relies on bakta working...
removed annotate from locidex search parameters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Release 0.2.0 PR of dev into main
PR checklist
nf-core lint
).nextflow run . -profile test,docker --outdir <OUTDIR>
).docs/usage.md
is updated.docs/output.md
is updated.CHANGELOG.md
is updated.README.md
is updated (including new tool citations and authors/contributors).