Closed radusuciu closed 8 years ago
Rewrite cimage lol.
Weren't Chu's guys already providing this feature in the new cimage?
On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Radu Suciu notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:
I really wish we could avoid this. Because this conversion is done at the cimage level it means two searches for every experiment and it means having duplicate entries in the experiments and dataset tables. It means extra logic when searching through datasets to determine which of the two to show and it will make they yet to be developed analysis feature more annoying to code and to use.
Is there no way around this?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/cravattlab/cravattdb/issues/23, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AIIV8sNioZnpxb75Fk9I71NUzIo40o75ks5qLvLBgaJpZM4I1ns8.
Were they? If that's the case I'd really rather have that code as this would be a pretty annoying thing to change after the fact.
Okay, so what I'm going to implement.
In the future we'll be able to clean up the duplicate datasets I hope.
Haven't referenced this in many commits, oops.
I really wish we could avoid this. Because this conversion is done at the cimage level it means two searches for every experiment and it means having duplicate entries in the
experiments
anddataset
tables. It means extra logic when searching through datasets to determine which of the two to show and it will make they yet to be developed analysis feature more annoying to code and to use.Is there no way around this?