search

danieljue / beast-mcmc

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/beast-mcmc
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
0 stars 0 forks source link

Beauti not retaining settings when saved file is reopened. #738

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Save a Beauti file with the SRD06 setting
2. Reopen the saved file and the settings have reverted to default settings - 
see email below for more details.
3.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead? See above/ below

What version of the product are you using? Beast v1.8 On what operating system? 
Windows 8a and 7

Please provide any additional information below.

From: jwtang49@hotmail.com
To: beast-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Beauti v1.8 - saved version not retaining 'Sites' settings on 
reopening?
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 04:12:11 +0000

<!-- .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P { padding:0px; } .ExternalClass 
body.ecxhmmessage { font-size:12pt; font-family:Calibri; } --> 
Hi Andrews, Alexei,

Maybe this has been mentioned by others, but when I save my Beauti settings 
using the 'Save As' option in the Beauti File drop-down menu, it seems that at 
least the original 'Sites' settings are not preserved.

I've kept screenshots of my settings, so I knew I had selected the SRD06 model 
settings (which unclicks the last 'Unlink base frequencies across codon 
positions' option) for my current analysis when I created the original Beast 
file. But when I re-open this saved Beauti file and check the 'Sites' settings, 
this last option is clicked again.

Is this a known bug in the saved Beauti files?

Thanks in advance,

Julian

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jwtan...@gmail.com on 30 Jun 2014 at 3:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by ramb...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2014 at 9:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by ramb...@gmail.com on 5 Aug 2014 at 7:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Pushed this one back as, although I can replicate it, it is a failing of the 
serialization of Java objects. Will take some work to debug and fix.

Original comment by ramb...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2014 at 1:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by ramb...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2014 at 1:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by ramb...@gmail.com on 5 Mar 2015 at 9:35