-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
validator #105
Comments
I certainly could! I want to make a non-short-circuiting validation refactor but have not found the time: #96 Right now, if anything looks "wrong" an exception is raised immediately. Instead of compiling all errors, and then emitting all of them at once at the end, you can actually fix your sample sheet once instead of iteratively. What are some validations you would like to see included beyond those that are simply spec. non-conforming? |
It would also be awesome if it supported plugin validations so you could easily extend base validations with custom lab validations. |
Hmm, I could use this in our lab too. I will do my best to carve out some time. |
Nice. I had just started this, but these are the most common issues I see:
Like I said, I haven't go far at all so this is just very preliminary I'm afraid. The idea is the lab colleagues can run a simple .bat script, which runs a python script natively in Windows. Output comments and errors go to an output txt file. That way they get instant feedback without having to wait for a) data and b) a bioinformatician to run bcl2fastq.
|
Do they use the Illumina experiment manager to create a sample sheet? Our lab folks do and it helps cut down errors. |
Nope, since they say it doesn't allow custom primers, which we use a lot of. eg for amplicons, Nextera, NEB etc. |
@colindaven I like where you are headed:
Right now validation is fail-fast which really hurts the turn-around for making a valid sample sheet since you have to iteratively edit and parse the sample sheet to wade through each validation exception one-by-one. I agree we should refactor validation in this toolkit so it is modular and as lazy as possible (collect all exceptions, and then emit in bulk at the end of a validation call). We're only on 0.11.0 so this is something I'm inclined to bundle into a v1 refactor and final public API. |
Hi,
thanks for this.
I have a lot of problems with incorrect and weird samplesheets from the lab generated with "copy-paste" and strange barcode schemes, such as mixed Truseq and Nextera.
I was starting to write a very simple validator to pick up on the worst errors, but now see you have done much more.
Are you planning to write a standalone validator or is this already possible via your library?
Thanks, Colin
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: