Skip to content

Study autoloaded #3046

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

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Nov 17, 2020
Merged

Study autoloaded #3046

merged 8 commits into from
Nov 17, 2020

Conversation

antgonza
Copy link
Member

Changes to support a study flag to mark as automatically loaded. In general, it should always be false, once we support autoloading we will use this flag.

antgonza and others added 6 commits September 16, 2020 16:57
* inject study_type in EBI and improvements to current automatic processing pipeline (qiita-spots#3023)

* inject study_type in ebi and improvements to current automatic proecssing pipeline

* addressing @ElDeveloper comments

* some general fixes/additions for next release (qiita-spots#3026)

* some general fixes/additions for next release

* adding test for not None job.release_validator_job

* fix qiita-spots#2839

* fix qiita-spots#2868 (qiita-spots#3028)

* fix qiita-spots#2868

* 2nd round

* fix errors

* more changes

* fix errors

* fix ProcessingJobTest

* fix PY_PATCH

* add missing TRN.add

* encapsulated_query -> perform_as_transaction

* fix qiita-spots#3022 (qiita-spots#3030)

* fix qiita-spots#3022

* adding tests

* fix qiita-spots#2320 (qiita-spots#3031)

* fix qiita-spots#2320

* adding prints to debug

* children -> 1

* APIArtifactHandlerTest -> APIArtifactHandlerTests

* configure_biom

* qdb.util.activate_or_update_plugins

* improving code

* almost there

* add values.template

* fix filepaths

* filepaths -> files

* fixing errors

* add prep.artifact insertion

* addressing @ElDeveloper comments

* fix artifact_definition active command

* != -> ==

* Added three tutorial sections to the Qiita documentation (qiita-spots#3032)

* Added three tutorial sections to the Qiita documentation: 'Retrieving Public Data for Own Analysis' and 'Processing public data retrieved with redbiom' to the redbiom tab, and 'Statistical Analysis to Justify Clinical Trial Sample Size Tutorial' to the analyzing samples tab.

* Update redbiom.rst

* Update redbiom.rst

* Update redbiom.rst

* Further updates to redbiom.rst and the Stats tutorial.

* update redbiom.rst

* Finished proof-reading

* Placed all three tutorials/sections together under Introduction to the download and analysis of public Qiita data

* added a new introduction, with links to the three sections

* Added figures to stats tutorial and contexts explanation

* Added figures to stats tutorial and contexts explanation

* Apply suggestions from code review [skip ci]

Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>

Co-authored-by: Antonio Gonzalez <antgonza@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>

* 092020 (qiita-spots#3033)

* 092020

* connect artifact with job

* rm INSERT qiita.artifact_processing_job

* Apply suggestions from code review [skip ci]

Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>

Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>

Co-authored-by: Daniel McDonald <danielmcdonald@ucsd.edu>
Co-authored-by: Mirte Kuijpers <67341505+mcmk3@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>
@antgonza antgonza requested a review from adswafford November 11, 2020 18:05
Copy link
Contributor

@adswafford adswafford left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not familiar with the code for Qiita, but from what I can tell it looks like everything is set as expected for adding the autoloaded flag for setting and getting later.

@antgonza antgonza requested a review from ElDeveloper November 14, 2020 19:09
@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #3046 (a23d701) into dev (5a308ea) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 93.75%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    #3046      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.03%   95.02%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          74       74              
  Lines       14284    14279       -5     
==========================================
- Hits        13575    13569       -6     
- Misses        709      710       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
qiita_db/metadata_template/prep_template.py 99.06% <ø> (+1.03%) ⬆️
qiita_db/test/test_commands.py 95.09% <ø> (ø)
qiita_db/test/test_util.py 99.70% <ø> (ø)
qiita_db/util.py 91.57% <ø> (ø)
qiita_db/processing_job.py 73.80% <68.75%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
qiita_db/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
qiita_db/analysis.py 96.80% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
qiita_db/handlers/artifact.py 97.43% <100.00%> (ø)
qiita_db/handlers/prep_template.py 94.73% <100.00%> (+0.14%) ⬆️
qiita_db/handlers/tests/test_artifact.py 97.61% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
... and 9 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8cef17e...a23d701. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@ElDeveloper ElDeveloper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few small changes. Quick question, is this attribute going to be visible as a metadata column?

Co-authored-by: Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <yoshiki@ucsd.edu>
@antgonza
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you for review; that's a good question! I don't think we should display it but it will be good to limit functionality for those studies we didn't submit ...

@ElDeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I think I was thinking mostly in terms of a meta-analysis to easily check for systematic effects.

@ElDeveloper ElDeveloper merged commit da6ab4b into qiita-spots:dev Nov 17, 2020
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