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

add unique key constraint on Phenotype table #304

Open
raivivek opened this Issue Jun 15, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@raivivek
Member

raivivek commented Jun 15, 2016

Following from discussion on gitter.

@raivivek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@raivivek

raivivek Jun 15, 2016

Member

@gedankenstuecke I am going to assume that since we have a validation step at the controller stage there will be no duplicate entries in the Phenotype table right now. If not, then one may have to operate on the table and merge duplicate entries...

Member

raivivek commented Jun 15, 2016

@gedankenstuecke I am going to assume that since we have a validation step at the controller stage there will be no duplicate entries in the Phenotype table right now. If not, then one may have to operate on the table and merge duplicate entries...

@gedankenstuecke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gedankenstuecke

gedankenstuecke Jun 16, 2016

Member

@vivekiitkgp I think there were like 2-3 duplicate phenotypes which would have to be manually dealt with before. Thanks for the work on it so far!

Member

gedankenstuecke commented Jun 16, 2016

@vivekiitkgp I think there were like 2-3 duplicate phenotypes which would have to be manually dealt with before. Thanks for the work on it so far!

@tsujigiri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tsujigiri

tsujigiri Jun 16, 2016

Collaborator

I'd prefer that we deal with it through a reviewable and testable migration over fiddeling around with it manually. ;)

Collaborator

tsujigiri commented Jun 16, 2016

I'd prefer that we deal with it through a reviewable and testable migration over fiddeling around with it manually. ;)

@gedankenstuecke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gedankenstuecke

gedankenstuecke Jun 16, 2016

Member

Fair enough :p

Member

gedankenstuecke commented Jun 16, 2016

Fair enough :p

@raivivek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@raivivek
Member

raivivek commented Jun 17, 2016

@tsujigiri On it!

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