on the 9th of April this year I reported a problem with weird read mapping metrics on version 1.0.3. which then you confirmed to be a bug.
Could you let me know if that bug only affected the report of those statistics but the transcripts selected as "good.transcritps" were really the ones with the best scores, or if this would have an affected the selection of the good transcripts in the output.
I apologise to bring this issue again but I'm not sure the previous issue was given as closed. We would like to know this because we have done an annotation with those transcripts and would like to know if those are trustable.
Hi,
on the 9th of April this year I reported a problem with weird read mapping metrics on version 1.0.3. which then you confirmed to be a bug.
Could you let me know if that bug only affected the report of those statistics but the transcripts selected as "good.transcritps" were really the ones with the best scores, or if this would have an affected the selection of the good transcripts in the output.
I apologise to bring this issue again but I'm not sure the previous issue was given as closed. We would like to know this because we have done an annotation with those transcripts and would like to know if those are trustable.
Many thanks.