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

Gp 4415.detailed case format #55

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024
Merged

Conversation

grapigeau
Copy link
Contributor

Jira ticket: https://jira.oicr.on.ca/browse/GP-4415

  • Includes a change file
  • Updates developer documentation

Copy link
Contributor

@djcooke djcooke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're now not adding non-sequencing samples to the sequencing for library qualification, but you're still creating a sequencing object that will never have any limsIds because there is no sequencing of that type for that test/case.

There is also a sequencing object for tests that don't yet have any sequencing (no limsIds). Is that wanted? There's no good way to tell whether a test has low-depth sequencing from the Cardea data if there are no samples, but if we avoid creating a sequencing object when there is no sequencing (whether that means yet or ever), that takes care of the problem.

@grapigeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

You're now not adding non-sequencing samples to the sequencing for library qualification, but you're still creating a sequencing object that will never have any limsIds because there is no sequencing of that type for that test/case.

There is also a sequencing object for tests that don't yet have any sequencing (no limsIds). Is that wanted? There's no good way to tell whether a test has low-depth sequencing from the Cardea data if there are no samples, but if we avoid creating a sequencing object when there is no sequencing (whether that means yet or ever), that takes care of the problem.

I think it does make sense to exclude objects aka tests where there are no samples.
To confirm we're on the same page, I'm thinking a case without any sequencing have the field: "sequencing": [] ?

@djcooke
Copy link
Contributor

djcooke commented Oct 3, 2024

I think it does make sense to exclude objects aka tests where there are no samples.
To confirm we're on the same page, I'm thinking a case without any sequencing have the field "sequencing": [] ?

The sequencing field could be omitted, null, or an empty array - whatever works. What I meant is that we shouldn't have something like this:

"sequencing": [
  {
    "type": "LIBRARY_QUALIFICATION",
    "limsIds": [] <- nothing here, and possibly never will be
    ...
  }
]

@grapigeau grapigeau merged commit cd95fb4 into main Oct 11, 2024
3 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants