Open HenrikBengtsson opened 2 years ago
For backward compatibility reasons, we probably want to keep the current Unknown.N
fields as copies of the new renamed fields.
I would drop backwards compatibility. This is better and I doubt anyone has been using it. By "breaking" it we silently alert potential upstream users that we have improvements
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:29 PM Henrik Bengtsson @.***> wrote:
For backward compatibility reasons, we probably want to keep the current Unknown.N fields as copies of the new renamed fields.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/illuminaio/issues/22#issuecomment-1256845457, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABF2DH6ZIBJ4O55LP5QZPELV7ZYSHANCNFSM6AAAAAAQUMIL3M . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
-- Best, Kasper
I found [2]; it seems that they've identified/decided on what some of the "unknown" fields are. Specifically, we could rename:
Unknown.1
=>OPA
[2]Unknown.2
=>SampleID
[1,2]Unknown.3
=>Description
[2]Unknown.4
=>Plate
[1,2]Unknown.5
=>Well
[1,2]In addition, we could rename:
MostlyNull
=>Manifest
[2]MostlyA
=>Label
[2] orStripe
[1]Examples
Package IlluminaDataTestFiles
The other IDAT files in IlluminaDataTestFiles have zero
Unknowns
, e.g.Package minfiDataEPIC
References