You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
... then, as of pyfastg v0.1.0, pyfastg's parse_fastg() function will throw an error saying that Node 1+ has duplicate outgoing adjacencies. The rationale for this behavior is that I haven't seen any SPAdes-dialect FASTG files that contain "parallel adjacencies," and I'm not sure if supporting these would be useful for anyone. (Also, the whole "edge and adjacency" paradigm of FASTG files means that defining multiple "adjacencies" between the same two edges becomes kind of hazy.)
That being said: if these sorts of graphs can exist in practice, then I think it should be fairly simple to modify pyfastg to support them (we would just change our return type from nx.DiGraph to nx.MultiDiGraph). If you (whomstever is reading this) has any thoughts on this, please comment below.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If we see a FASTG file containing an edge declaration like
... then, as of pyfastg v0.1.0, pyfastg's
parse_fastg()
function will throw an error saying thatNode 1+ has duplicate outgoing adjacencies.
The rationale for this behavior is that I haven't seen any SPAdes-dialect FASTG files that contain "parallel adjacencies," and I'm not sure if supporting these would be useful for anyone. (Also, the whole "edge and adjacency" paradigm of FASTG files means that defining multiple "adjacencies" between the same two edges becomes kind of hazy.)That being said: if these sorts of graphs can exist in practice, then I think it should be fairly simple to modify pyfastg to support them (we would just change our return type from
nx.DiGraph
tonx.MultiDiGraph
). If you (whomstever is reading this) has any thoughts on this, please comment below.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: