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
Right now the pipeline only accepts paths in the illumina_sra_file_path columns. Refactor to support nanopore data as well.
This is tricky because if the user provides both illumina and nanopore data, we'll need to create two separate tsvs for that (as seqsender is currently implemented) or adjust the seqsender code to upload both in one file. The latter would probably be easier since having two tsvs might be tricky with our NF channels.
Place an ❌ in a Box that Best Matches the Feature's Importance:
[] 1 - Most important (absolutely integral and will not use codebase at all without it)
2-4 - Moderate (still using codebase for other functions but is serving as a blocker for future use-cases)
[] 5 - Least important (would like to see but there are no stringent expectations nor urgency for current/future use-cases)
Any Additional Context or Information? Has There Been Any Progress Made So Far Towards this Request? Any Helpful Resources to Reference? Screenshots or Links?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now the pipeline only accepts paths in the illumina_sra_file_path columns. Refactor to support nanopore data as well.
This is tricky because if the user provides both illumina and nanopore data, we'll need to create two separate tsvs for that (as seqsender is currently implemented) or adjust the seqsender code to upload both in one file. The latter would probably be easier since having two tsvs might be tricky with our NF channels.
Place an ❌ in a Box that Best Matches the Feature's Importance:
Any Additional Context or Information? Has There Been Any Progress Made So Far Towards this Request? Any Helpful Resources to Reference? Screenshots or Links?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: