-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
assemble/recover: Require users to specify coassembly or not. #223
Conversation
Integration test pass. I also checked with a dryrun and it seems to be working as expected. @rhysnewell can you make a new release once this and #222 are merged? |
Thoughts @rhysnewell ? Wanting to check since this is a breaking change |
@wwood I was waiting for clarification of my comment earlier. What's the default behaviour now? |
Previously it would silently just assemble the first, now it errors out unless one of the flags is set |
@wwood and what if only a single set of reads is supplied? Does the user still have to add the flag? |
No, it just works as you'd expect - the 1 readset is used and no flag is necessary |
Okay, that sounds all good then. Any other PRs you want before the next release? |
No, I think that's it for now
-\-------------
Ben Woodcroft
Group leader, Centre for Microbiome Research, QUT
…________________________________
From: Rhys Newell ***@***.***>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 3:33:27 PM
To: rhysnewell/aviary ***@***.***>
Cc: Ben J Woodcroft ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [rhysnewell/aviary] assemble/recover: Require users to specify coassembly or not. (PR #223)
Okay, that sounds all good then. Any other PRs you want before the next release?
―
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#223 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAADX5CFLBC4TR27AQQM4K32BQNKPAVCNFSM6AAAAABRBVHIFWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIOBXGQ4TANZQGY>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Fixes #219.
This is a breaking change for the command line (before it would silently not coassemble), but the break will cause an error to be thrown at least. I guess there are documention fixes to be done too.