Skip to content
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

Going from parameter files to SDRF files #14

Open
enryH opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Going from parameter files to SDRF files #14

enryH opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@enryH
Copy link

enryH commented Sep 26, 2023

Hey,

so just to be sure and document it here. Veit mentioned this project to us for potential use in ProteoBench. We aim to parse parameter files into a common format (or at least parts of it).

Currently there is no way to create an SDRF files with all possible information which can be added to SDRF based on search engine parameter file, e.g. mqpar.xml from MaxQuant.

Reference: Proteobench/ProteoBench#58

@di-hardt
Copy link
Collaborator

di-hardt commented Sep 26, 2023

Great idea and simple enough. I will define a AbstractConfigConverter as it already exists for the other way around (SDRF -> Config).
Do you already have some validation or something in mind which is ture for multiple configs?

@julianu
Copy link
Contributor

julianu commented Oct 27, 2023

As just discuessed in the call:
To adjust our work a bit, we could/shoudl take the information from this file https://github.com/bigbio/sdrf-pipelines/blob/master/sdrf_pipelines/sdrf_merge/param2sdrf.yml and make it usable as input file for the sdrf_convert (and the other way around).
My idea would be to use the same naming of the parameters in the CLI (at least as an alias to the searchengine-specifc naming), but also maybe make a call possible which picks up a configured yaml file instead of typing everything into the CLI.

What do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants