-
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
Errant fields in CDS Sequencing template #434
Comments
I think this was fixed here . Is there further work to be done on this? |
Cross check with #436 |
To the best of my knowledge, I don't think this issue co-occurs wtih 436. When I check the configs for the cds genomics mapping scripts it does not contain anything referencing CITE-seq and generally, CITE-seq was only implemented very recently. Since that issue + PR is separate I think they can be moved forward independently from this one. @adamjtaylor |
@PozhidayevaDarya @adamjtaylor I just generated a Multiplexed CITE-seq Level 1 manifest using dca staging and still see cDNA length and cDNA offset, is this still expected? I think I saw and fixed a similar issue in #417 Do we know where specifically these DAG loops are? |
24-7 close out: Okay if this rolls into 24-8 sprint. |
Check is these cDNA attributes are still appearing:
|
Still seeing cDNA length and cDNA offset here, as optional fields. Is that expected? |
Check whether these are still in the CDS seq template. If they are, document this, and take no action, but be sure to communicate to contributors that they can ignore these two attributes. Action: with every release, have latest blank templates auto-generated and push to a folder in GH @aclayton555 backlog a ticket for this. Doing this in MC2 - pull this over. |
Confirmed: these two attributes are still in the CDS seq template |
Two attributes (cDNA Length and cDNA Offset) that were accidentally included in this initial version of the template. These are optional attributes and can be ignored by users currently, but we should remove these in the future. Likely due to a clash or issue with the DAG, as commented in #396
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: