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

add appropriate NCBI validation checks #42

Closed
nathandunn opened this issue Oct 17, 2014 · 5 comments
Closed

add appropriate NCBI validation checks #42

nathandunn opened this issue Oct 17, 2014 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@nathandunn
Copy link
Contributor

Requested these checks from NCBI. I think it would make sense for ALL users to have access to most of these. I think it would make sense for them to choose which errors / warnings they want to see (its possible that some might be slow). I think that many of these may come on the newer UI.

@nathandunn nathandunn added this to the 3.0 Release - Early 2015 milestone Oct 17, 2014
@nathandunn
Copy link
Contributor Author

1 - review ORvis list
2 - review "common eukaryotic annotation erros to avoid (attached)

@nathandunn
Copy link
Contributor Author

will be under the doc directory under NCBI_checks

@selewis
Copy link

selewis commented Oct 18, 2014

I think we should already have most of these. Can we discuss more please
when I'm back.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Nathan Dunn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Requested these checks from NCBI. I think it would make sense for ALL
users to have access to most of these. I think it would make sense for them
to choose which errors / warnings they want to see (its possible that some
might be slow). I think that many of these may come on the newer UI.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#42.

@nathandunn
Copy link
Contributor Author

definitely

@nathandunn nathandunn modified the milestones: 2.1, 2.0 Apr 6, 2015
@nathandunn nathandunn modified the milestones: 2.0.2, 2.2 Aug 7, 2015
@nathandunn nathandunn modified the milestones: 2.0.2, 2.0.3 Sep 10, 2015
@monicacecilia
Copy link
Member

I think this is better explained at #565 -

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