-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
validation of Newick output #16
Comments
If that is implying that all trees have to be binary then no, that is not correct. It is permitted in Newick to have a tri-furcation e.g. (A(B,C,D) or larger polytomy (A(B(C,D,E,F,G))). |
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Ross Mounce notifications@github.com
That's exactly why it's a problem. It may mean that I will have to create a So the likelihood is that we have a single file of 5000 lines with Newick [1] Yes we can find/grep/cat to concatenate output, but ultimately —
Peter Murray-Rust |
Does this mean that we can try with a small number of trees to test whether the supertree workflow works (even if the answers are not meaningful)? |
From Ross
We haven't decided where the *.nwk files are in the Ctree. Since there could be >1 image there will be >1 *.nwk
So you will flag 16 files as errors in an issue, explain what is wrong and assign them as an issue for me?
That's your shout. My point is that I have to know that AMI output is valid. It sounds like some of it isn't |
Just uploaded it all to https://github.com/ContentMine/phylotree/tree/master/errors/TreeGraph2-validation-tests I have now posted a separate issue here: #17 for the specific files which appear to be erroneous |
There's an error in Github: Sorry, we had to truncate this directory to 1,000 files. 7,798 entries were On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ross Mounce notifications@github.com
Peter Murray-Rust |
Are these all files in error? (.../errors/TreeGraph2-validation-tests We need a description of what these files are. They look like potential On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <
Peter Murray-Rust |
Provide a mechanism for validating *.nwk output.
As an example http://libpll.org/api/group__newickParseGroup.html defines a valid tree as
This implies that all multiple parentage should be expanded to binary trees apart from roots.
Is this a satisfactory validator? and does it validate node labels, etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: