-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
MAINT: remove the Rust dependency #164
Conversation
Hey @ebolyen, hi @lizgehret, is this what you had in mind or can we do it better? 😆 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #164 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.74% 98.73% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 29 29
Lines 3031 3012 -19
==========================================
- Hits 2993 2974 -19
Misses 38 38 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
On first glance, this all seems reasonable to me @misialq!
EDIT: That being said, it might be worth adding a couple of unit tests just to make sure we're getting the same output as before.
Hey @ebolyen, thanks for your suggestions! I did try to change the code accordingly, but something strange is happening here... When I compare the file before and after compression (by "eye" and programmatically) they look identical. And yet QIIME keeps complaining that something is not quite right with the new one - here is the message I get when one of the tests fails:
I get a similar one when I just try to import that file into an artifact from the CLI. Is there anything obvious I'm missing here? I have not yet looked at what the validator does exactly... |
Hi @misialq, This code is correct, although there's a tiny strangeness to either the test-file or our validator, depending on perspective. The original code did newline processing, and so would politely terminate the file with a final newline (you can run Our validator is comparing line length, and includes the newline in its count. So:
The super easy fix is to just add one more line to your test file. I don't think SRA will give you a non-newline terminated file, so I think just adding the newline to the test file is the way to go here. The less easy fix is to update the validator to ignore newlines without adding too much more processing time (so maybe end-of-file only). Alternatively we update this code to tack on a final newline if it's missing pre-gzip, but I don't think there's any nice way to do that. |
Hey @ebolyen, I knew your keen eye would spot it! Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I decided to go for the first and easiest solution, simply because (as you pointed out) the sequences fetched from SRA do have those newlines. Let me know whether that works for you and whether there are any other changes you'd like to see here. Otherwise, I'd be ready to merge. Thanks a lot! |
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.
Sorry this took me a minute to get back to! I've been swamped. This looks great, and we should be able to get it into our distros now :)
This PR removes the
fastq_writer
to get rid of the Rust dependency for our conda builds.