-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
Fix marker ordering errors and verification for channel enrichment #274
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah right, got confused by the comment, I see now. Just a one-liner check for new test and we should be good
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
marker_thresholds
is growing up so fast 😭 ; so much tougher and robust than they once were
What is the purpose of this PR?
Addresses and closes #265. Also addresses and closes #266. We add a more robust method to verify that the markers in
all_channel_data
andmarker_thresholds
are the same between the two, and we ensure that they are ordered consistently as well. This only applies for channel enrichment.How did you implement your changes
Use set equality to check if the markers are the same, and reindexing to enforce order.
Remaining issues
This is an extremely strict way of handling the various different types of
marker_thresholds
andall_channel_data
values the user may pass in. From personal experience, expect all sorts of messes in this regard. This method may be a bit too strict, so I'm open to other ideas.