You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Within the genome, we have chromosome plus position, which are independent fields. From a human perspective, sorting on "position" most logically means the combination of chromosome + position, where chromosome establishes a sort order. To facilitate this, we already compute a "genomePosition" field, which creates a single numeric series to order positions in the "human correct" order.
When the user tries to sort the variant search results on position, I think we should silently use genomicPosition as the actual sort field. Otherwise sorting on position gives weird results like:
We could either handle this client-side, or look for this string server-side. I cant think of a reason either is better or worse. I wonder if the chromosome/contig field should have the same behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Within the genome, we have chromosome plus position, which are independent fields. From a human perspective, sorting on "position" most logically means the combination of chromosome + position, where chromosome establishes a sort order. To facilitate this, we already compute a "genomePosition" field, which creates a single numeric series to order positions in the "human correct" order.
When the user tries to sort the variant search results on position, I think we should silently use genomicPosition as the actual sort field. Otherwise sorting on position gives weird results like:
We could either handle this client-side, or look for this string server-side. I cant think of a reason either is better or worse. I wonder if the chromosome/contig field should have the same behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: