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

[MRG] add an lca gather signature decomposition approach #390

Merged
merged 45 commits into from
Feb 23, 2018

Conversation

ctb
Copy link
Contributor

@ctb ctb commented Feb 3, 2018

Ref #384. Unlike 'sourmash gather' this requires taxonomy information from an LCA database.

It is also

  • blazingly fast
  • quite memory intensive

Unlike sourmash gather this will not print out arbitrary genome names or anything - it's solely about taxonomic display. It also alerts the user to the number of equivalent matches and outputs it to the CSV (but only displays one match).

other additions:

checklist:

  • Is it mergeable?
  • make test Did it pass the tests?
  • make coverage Is the new code covered?
  • Did it change the command-line interface? Only additions are allowed
    without a major version increment. Changing file formats also requires a
    major version number increment.
  • Was a spellchecker run on the source code and documentation after
    changes were made?

@ctb ctb changed the title add an initial lca gather signature decomposition approach [WIP] add an initial lca gather signature decomposition approach Feb 3, 2018
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 4, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #390 into master will decrease coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 89.74%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #390      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.14%   90.07%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          31       32       +1     
  Lines        4586     4824     +238     
  Branches       36       36              
==========================================
+ Hits         4134     4345     +211     
- Misses        451      478      +27     
  Partials        1        1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
sourmash_lib/lca/command_index.py 89.32% <100%> (+0.18%) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/lca/command_rankinfo.py 89.36% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/test_lca.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/lca/command_compare_csv.py 92.3% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/search.py 92.68% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/lca/__main__.py 82.6% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/lca/command_summarize.py 83.14% <100%> (-0.19%) ⬇️
sourmash_lib/commands.py 90.85% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
sourmash_lib/lca/command_classify.py 87.05% <100%> (-0.16%) ⬇️
sourmash_lib/lca/__init__.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
... and 4 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 27dad7c...5407bd1. Read the comment docs.

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
from sourmash_lib.lca.command_index import load_taxonomy_assignments

def compare_csv(args):
p = argparse.ArgumentParser()
p = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog="sourmash lca compare_csv")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, we can make a low-hanging fruit issue for this change (on other commands)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Punted to #415

from sourmash_lib.lca.lca_utils import debug, set_debug
from sourmash_lib.search import format_bp

LCAGatherResult = namedtuple('LCAGatherResult',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have a feeling that we might be reaching a point where we want a Result class to collect functionality from all these NamedTuples...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Punted to #416

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Feb 23, 2018 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants