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

Default value for reads.toCoverage(collapse) should be false #1483

Closed
fnothaft opened this issue Apr 10, 2017 · 0 comments
Closed

Default value for reads.toCoverage(collapse) should be false #1483

fnothaft opened this issue Apr 10, 2017 · 0 comments
Milestone

Comments

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member

@fnothaft fnothaft commented Apr 10, 2017

IMO, it is more common that you're going to run an analysis where you look at the number of reads at a site than where you're going to visualize coverage. As such, I think it makes more sense to not generate the collapsed coverage, which collapses sites that have identical coverage. @akmorrow13 your thoughts?

fnothaft added a commit to fnothaft/adam that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2017
Resolves bigdatagenomics#1483. Instead of providing a parameter in the `toCoverage` method to
allow users to collapse the coverage, makes the `toCoverage` method stupid. This
makes the `toCoverage` method simpler and the behavior easier to reason about.
fnothaft added a commit to fnothaft/adam that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
Resolves bigdatagenomics#1483. Instead of providing a parameter in the `toCoverage` method to
allow users to collapse the coverage, makes the `toCoverage` method stupid. This
makes the `toCoverage` method simpler and the behavior easier to reason about.
heuermh added a commit that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
Resolves #1483. Instead of providing a parameter in the `toCoverage` method to
allow users to collapse the coverage, makes the `toCoverage` method stupid. This
makes the `toCoverage` method simpler and the behavior easier to reason about.
@heuermh heuermh added this to the 0.23.0 milestone Jul 22, 2017
@heuermh heuermh added this to the 0.23.0 milestone Jul 22, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants