-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
EVA-3378 read scientific name from evapro #171
Conversation
@@ -98,7 +98,9 @@ def semantic_validation(self): | |||
taxid_and_species_list = set([(row['Tax Id'], row['Scientific Name']) for row in self.metadata['Sample'] if row['Tax Id']]) | |||
for taxid, species in taxid_and_species_list: | |||
try: | |||
scientific_name = get_scientific_name_from_ensembl(int(taxid)) | |||
scientific_name = get_scientific_name_from_taxonomy(int(taxid), |
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.
Given the possible latency across the different stages (metadata validation, brokering etc.,) I think we should nail down the scientific name just once at the outset (we can decide when this should be #devmeeting), add it to the EVA and use the metadata from EVA from there on.
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.
Looks good! Needs further discussion on when to persist the scientific name to EVAPRO
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 realise that we discussed ad nauseam but the passing of the private config file/profile everywhere is not really elegant.
I think we need a better solution than that.
Decided not to go ahead with this approach (will use the metadata api) |
No description provided.