jazdrv / dnaTools

GNU General Public License v3.0
1 stars 4 forks source link

in proc_chk, splits isn't able to see unk's that are to be promoted to POS #10

Closed jazdrv closed 6 years ago

jazdrv commented 6 years ago

This is causing a problem where it's creating split candidates, when it shouldn't.

ie: in my 16 kits, variant Z2265, for example -- has this (pre-process)

Zaks-MacBook-Pro:redux2 jazdrv$ r2 -m Z2265

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  c          p         v      293507  224096  510668  122898  120386  124134  22654  499807  521793  B30884  637069  163973  N4826  216600  5962  177312 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                0       1       2       3       4       5       6      7       8       9       10      11     12      13     14     15   |
|                                                                                                                                                         |
| 144     11552312      Z2265    0       0       0       1       0       0       1      0       0       1       0       0       0      0      0           |
`+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
` And, it's giving me these results for the rule determination: Zaks-MacBook-Pro:redux2 jazdrv$ r2 -vp Z2265 vix: Z2265 [144] sups: U106 [0] subs: A6906,789165 [14,10] eqv: [] kuc: 293507,224096,510668,120386,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973,N4826,216600,5962 [0,1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14] num of sups: 1 unks: 293507,224096,510668,120386,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973,N4826,216600,5962 [0,1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14] There are 1 sups to go through. sup: U106 [0] - [1] sup is sub/eq/sup to target variant - [1] remaining unk - ambig pos: 293507,224096,510668,120386,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973,N4826,216600,5962 [0,1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14] There are 15 v1subs for sup U106 - [2] v1sub: Z24.2 [1] (mtP) shared btw vix + v1sub: B30884,122898 [9,3] (msP) shared btw sup + v1sub: 293507,510668,122898,124134,499807,521793,B30884,637069,163973 [0,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11] (xP) msP-mtP: 293507,510668,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973 [0,2,5,7,8,10,11] (cP) common btw msP+mtP: B30884,122898 [9,3] - [2] v1sub: BY25314 [2] (mtP) shared btw vix + v1sub: 122898 [3] (msP) shared btw sup + v1sub: 293507,510668,122898,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973 [0,2,3,5,7,8,10,11] (xP) msP-mtP: 293507,510668,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973 [0,2,5,7,8,10,11] (cP) common btw msP+mtP: 122898 [3] - [2] 293507 [0] is a req positive - [2] 510668 [2] is a req positive - [2] 124134 [5] is a req positive - [2] 499807 [7] is a req positive - [2] 521793 [8] is a req positive - [2] 637069 [10] is a req positive - [2] 163973 [11] is a req positive - [2] v1sub: Z307 [3] (mtP) shared btw vix + v1sub: 22654 [6] (msP) shared btw sup + v1sub: 224096,120386,22654,N4826,216600,5962 [1,4,6,12,13,14] (xP) msP-mtP: 224096,120386,N4826,216600,5962 [1,4,12,13,14] (cP) common btw msP+mtP: 22654 [6] - [2] v1sub: S1911 [4] (mtP) shared btw vix + v1sub: 22654 [6] (msP) shared btw sup + v1sub: 224096,120386,22654 [1,4,6] (xP) msP-mtP: 224096,120386 [1,4] (cP) common btw msP+mtP: 22654 [6] - [2] 224096 [1] is a req positive - [2] 120386 [4] is a req positive - [2] v1sub: FGC13476 [6] (mtP) shared btw vix + v1sub: 22654 [6] (msP) shared btw sup + v1sub: 224096,22654 [1,6] (xP) msP-mtP: 224096 [1] (cP) common btw msP+mtP: 22654 [6] - [2] 224096 [1] is a req positive - [2] split required: btw [[9, 3], [3], [6]] - [2] all unk to negative **splits: 122898,22654 [3,6]** neg: 293507,224096,510668,120386,124134,499807,521793,637069,163973,N4826,216600,5962 [0,1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14] sups: U106 [0] subs: A6906,789165 [14,10] ** script complete. ... Those splits shouldn't be there. And actually all those negs, should be pos's; this error is causing this misunderstanding.
jazdrv commented 6 years ago

I've done some work on this idea already:

see the three sha's below (0d0015a , 27e8bd3, 27e3fc1) where it mentions issue #10. I just need to verify it's working via checking the data, etc.

jazdrv commented 6 years ago

the remaining concerns of this issue are part of issue #22, so closing this.