Skip to content
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

Ensure bookkeeping of multiple contigs for the same process ID #50

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024
Merged

Conversation

rvosa
Copy link
Member

@rvosa rvosa commented Nov 25, 2024

No description provided.

rvosa added 20 commits November 6, 2024 17:20
…t word of the fasta definition line. The process ID is attached to the record under sequence.annotations[bcdm_fields][processid]
…cess ID as a separate member of the return tuple, but rather attaches it to the sequence under sequence.annotations[bcdm_fields][processid]
…cess ID as a separate member of the return tuple, but rather attaches it to the sequence under sequence.annotations[bcdm_fields][processid]. Also, both the structural validation and the taxonomic validation now both receive a result object that they modify.
…D as a separate member of the return tuple, but rather attaches it to the sequence under sequence.annotations[bcdm_fields][processid]. Also, both the structural validation and the taxonomic validation now both receive a result object that they modify.
… ID. Also has getters/setters for the fasta file name ('dataset'). Separate handling of 'level' is now handled by 'identification_rank'. The column headers are managed such that they can be flushed from one result set to the next.
…etically we could now validate different records at different precision levels.
@rvosa rvosa merged commit 7932e07 into nhm Nov 25, 2024
3 checks passed
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.

1 participant