Closed ryan-williams closed 7 years ago
Coverage increased (+11.5%)
?? Does that seem right?
No, coveralls is clearly confused on this PR.
It just occurred to me that it's likely to do with my caching target
here; coverage-info from previous runs is hanging around.
Let me either make sure that doesn't happen, or remove that change.
In general I think zinc is reliable enough at this point that we could save a lot of time not recompiling everything every build, and only rarely (if ever) having to clear caches; having repros for such zinc bugs as cause us to need to clear caches could be useful anyway.
OK, I think I fixed coveralls.
I'd say just wait for/ask for a new ADAM release then managing one though
There's no "managing" to be done; we have the equivalent of a SNAPSHOT
but that won't break under us.
this ports us on to most of the non-trivial changes that have happened in ADAM since 0.19.0, using my forked "0.20.0".
ADAM's VCF-writing now requires
Sample.sampleId
to matchGenotype.sampleId
, and I am using the "sampleName" pulled from readsets.args.Base / ReadSets rather than the loaded-from-datasampleName
onRead
.The latter is now unused so I removed it. It might make sense to keep it around explicitly in some way… seems like what ADAM now does with RecordGroups is the right thing, maybe we'll want to use that if we care about that data again.
This change is![Reviewable](https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg)