Used fastq strategy for multi-FASTA

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #79 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%. The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #79      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   99.48%   99.5%   +0.02%     
=========================================
  Files           8       8              
  Lines         196     204       +8     
  Branches       32      35       +3     
=========================================
+ Hits          195     203       +8     
  Partials        1       1

[mbhall88]

You need to handle the case where wrap_length = 0 i.e no wrapping

[scatcher125]

You need to handle the case where wrap_length = 0 i.e no wrapping

I'm actually a bit confused about why wrap_length=0 is ok for FASTQ but not FASTA. Also about whether I would handle this in the tests or in the code itself.

[mbhall88]

You need to handle the case where wrap_length = 0 i.e no wrapping

I'm actually a bit confused about why wrap_length=0 is ok for FASTQ but not FASTA. Also about whether I would handle this in the tests or in the code itself.

So I think there is a slight difference between fastq and fasta implementations in that fasta is None by default and fastq is 80 by default. I basically say in fastq that if the wrap_length is 0, dont wrap, otherwise wrap.

[scatcher125]

You need to handle the case where wrap_length = 0 i.e no wrapping

I'm actually a bit confused about why wrap_length=0 is ok for FASTQ but not FASTA. Also about whether I would handle this in the tests or in the code itself.

So I think there is a slight difference between fastq and fasta implementations in that fasta is None by default and fastq is 80 by default. I basically say in fastq that if the wrap_length is 0, dont wrap, otherwise wrap.

Oh I see. Perhaps I could edit fasta_entry to use the same strategy.