-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
refactor of pipeline #52
Conversation
All relevant information from that branch now appears to be merged. These are the single-cell progeny production pilots.
This is more Illumina 10x sequencing of some of the transcriptomes. Also fixed mis-specification of hashing trial 3 without NH4Cl
merge David's updates into new refactored pipeline branch
@jbloom That sounds like a good strategy. We can add back the analysis notebooks one at a time and review them. I am going to make sure this runs on my local directory before I approve the pull request. I've been getting an error that I think is related to the new snakemake/jupyter integration. I will try this new version and see if it resolves the issue. |
This looks good. The jupyter-nbconvert issue was fixed by changing the permissions. The pipeline runs without error and the output that I spot checked looks 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.
Ready to merge.
@dbacsik, this is my pull request that refactors the pipeline. If this looks good to you, we can merge it into
main
and then work from there. Lots of changes! Main ones:config.yaml
as you are familiar with.snakemake
capability for this (see use newSnakemake
Jupyter notebook integration #46).report.html
file is now written toresults
and isn't tracked for now as it gets too many differences.Note that this does not have the analysis notebooks, so we need to add those. But I thought we could try to get this on
main
and then make future pull requests to it to consolidate the other branches back in. Does that sound good?