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

[ADAM-1365] Apply validation stringency to reads on missing contigs when MD tagging #1366

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 23, 2017

Conversation

Projects
3 participants
@fnothaft
Member

fnothaft commented Jan 23, 2017

Resolves #1365. If a read is mapped to a contig that is missing from the broadcasted fragment map, we look at the user's provided validation stringency before throwing an exception.

[ADAM-1365] Apply validation stringency to reads on missing contigs w…
…hen MD tagging

Resolves #1365. If a read is mapped to a contig that is missing from the broadcasted
fragment map, we look at the user's provided validation stringency before throwing
an exception.

@fnothaft fnothaft added this to the 0.22.0 milestone Jan 23, 2017

.extract(ReferenceRegion.unstranded(read)))
} catch {
case t: Throwable => {
if (validationStringency == ValidationStringency.STRICT) {

This comment has been minimized.

@heuermh

heuermh Jan 23, 2017

Member

The more we use ValidationStringency outside of forwarding to htsjdk, the less I like using their enum.

I know this isn't the place; what do you think of an ADAM-specific enum that maps to ValidationStringency where necessary? We could use the opportunity to come up with a better name, since it isn't really about validation, it is more about error reporting.

@heuermh

heuermh Jan 23, 2017

Member

The more we use ValidationStringency outside of forwarding to htsjdk, the less I like using their enum.

I know this isn't the place; what do you think of an ADAM-specific enum that maps to ValidationStringency where necessary? We could use the opportunity to come up with a better name, since it isn't really about validation, it is more about error reporting.

This comment has been minimized.

@fnothaft

fnothaft Jan 23, 2017

Member

I'm +0. I don't love ValidationStringency, but I'm a bit too lazy to deconvolve it from our codebase. I guess I'd say that it is on the sorted list of refactors that I'd like to do, but lower down on the list. That being said, it's probably not that much work. CC @ryan-williams for thoughts as well.

@fnothaft

fnothaft Jan 23, 2017

Member

I'm +0. I don't love ValidationStringency, but I'm a bit too lazy to deconvolve it from our codebase. I guess I'd say that it is on the sorted list of refactors that I'd like to do, but lower down on the list. That being said, it's probably not that much work. CC @ryan-williams for thoughts as well.

This comment has been minimized.

@heuermh

heuermh Jan 23, 2017

Member

Yeah that's where I'm at too. If I had a better name ready, I'd do it.

@heuermh

heuermh Jan 23, 2017

Member

Yeah that's where I'm at too. If I had a better name ready, I'd do it.

@AmplabJenkins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AmplabJenkins

AmplabJenkins Jan 23, 2017

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/ADAM-prb/1750/
Test PASSed.

AmplabJenkins commented Jan 23, 2017

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/ADAM-prb/1750/
Test PASSed.

@heuermh heuermh merged commit c0ed2b2 into bigdatagenomics:master Jan 23, 2017

1 check passed

default Merged build finished.
Details
@heuermh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heuermh

heuermh Jan 23, 2017

Member

Thank you, @fnothaft!

Member

heuermh commented Jan 23, 2017

Thank you, @fnothaft!

@heuermh heuermh added this to Completed in Release 0.23.0 Mar 8, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment