-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
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
DSL2: Add mapAD #1072
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
DSL2: Add mapAD #1072
Conversation
|
8c34dae
to
bedff75
Compare
a7d8958
to
fd56e8b
Compare
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.
Very good! Just some small changes! 😄
- Rename parameters to match formatting of other params. (they should follow the schema
section_tool_paramatername
. i.e.mapping_mapad_gap_read_end_distance
should bemapping_mapad_gapreadenddistance
) - Could you give
mapping_mapad_D
a long-form name? I worry that_D
and_d
will be confused by users. - You don't need to run
SAMTOOLS_SORT_MAPAD
at all. We do a samtools sort after merging all lanes/shards together anyway.
Thank you both for the reviews! |
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.
Great work! Just one small edit to the parameter helptext.
I see you have another PR test left unchecked (ssDNA library). Is that still pending?
Re point 3 of my last review:
I see no SORT calls in the subworkflows of other mappers, but it is entirely possible that they output already sorted bams. I'm happy to take your call on this, was just checking it was intentional and not a forgotten module addition used for testing 👍
Oh, good catch. I've verified that. |
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.
I think the main thing missing us a draft of `output.md' and 'citations.md' .For the latter you can jsut use a Zenodo DOI or GitHub link
But otherwise I think this looks pretty good to me code wise!
nextflow_schema.json
Outdated
"mapping_mapad_stacklimitabort": { | ||
"type": "boolean", | ||
"description": "Set the --stack_limit_abort flag, which instructs mapAD to not try and recover from a full backtracking stack.", | ||
"help_text": "Without this flag, mapAD tries to recover from a full backtracking stack by removing low-scoring sub-alignments. This can help to recover from difficult to map reads, at the cost of a slower alignment. Setting this flag will speed up the alignment process.\n\n> Modifies mapAD map parameter: `--stack_limit_abort`", |
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.
I don't really follow what exactly the behaviour does here, and I think the 'backtracking stack' jargon might not be help either.
"help_text": "Without this flag, mapAD tries to recover from a full backtracking stack by removing low-scoring sub-alignments. This can help to recover from difficult to map reads, at the cost of a slower alignment. Setting this flag will speed up the alignment process.\n\n> Modifies mapAD map parameter: `--stack_limit_abort`", | |
"help_text": "By default, mapAD will remove low-scoring sub-alignments, helping to recover from difficult to map reads, at the cost of a slower alignment. Setting this flag will speed up the alignment process by not removing these.\n\n> Modifies mapAD map parameter: `--stack_limit_abort`", |
Is that what you mean?
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.
Right! I'm going to flip the default for this in mapAD and reword this accordingly..
ch_input_for_mapping.index, | ||
params.mapping_mapad_p, | ||
ch_input_for_mapping.strandedness, | ||
params.mapping_mapad_f, |
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.
Just to check, all of these parameters would make sense to apply across all samples/genomes in a run?
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.
Hmmm, right. It would probably make way more sense to make this configurable per sample/genome
@jch-13 What is the state of this PR? |
Warning Newer version of the nf-core template is available. Your pipeline is using an old version of the nf-core template: 3.1.2. For more documentation on how to update your pipeline, please see the nf-core documentation and Synchronisation documentation. |
I'll rebase this after #1106 has landed |
d7d70cf
to
713a341
Compare
PR checklist
scrape_software_versions.py
nf-core lint .
).nextflow run . -profile test,docker
).docs/usage.md
is updated.docs/output.md
is updated.CHANGELOG.md
is updated.README.md
is updated (including new tool citations and authors/contributors).PR TODO
version.yml
generation