Closed emollier closed 3 years ago
I'm not sure there's a nice way to support both 1.78 and 1.79 from the same code base.
I've had a discussion with the Biopython authors about the pain points of their 1.79 changes here, but then got sidetracked and just pinned to 1.78 for local use. I lost track of how many of my python packages got broken by that change.
I guess it's time for a new release that just bumps the minimum required version to 1.79 and builds on the new code, though even for that I really hate the code necessary.
Ok, this is also breaking PR #22
I just recalled to mention in case you were to use it: I wrote the patch in Debian context, and the writing to /dev/null to make sure the error is raised wouldn't be portable on non-Unix systems.
Otherwise thanks for the context, this was informative.
It looks like I have started to fix the issue on this machine three months ago and forgot about it.
Should be fixed by dcba66f4715c586cdac89ccf26480ede79307d6b, I'll release a new version of ncbi-acc-download
once PR #22 is merged.
Aaah, great! Thanks for your work on this topic! :)
Fixed in release 0.2.8 that's now on pypi (and here).
Greetings,
While working on updating Biopython to version 1.79 in Debian Experimental, we noticed that the new version of Biopython broke the test suite of ncbi-acc-download. Excerpt from the full log from Debian continuous integration, there are variations around the following symptom, affecting the _download_wgsparts function of wgs.py:
After some digging, the issue turned out to be related to the deprecation of Bio.Seq.UnknownSeq in Biopython 1.79. Apparently, unknown sequences are now created as regular sequences of class Seq with data being None and non-zero length, and thus the test on record.seq being an instance of UnknownSeq always fails.
The problem was initially discussed on Debian bug tracker issue #996794, where I devised on a patch with which I tried to remain functionally equivalent to the existing code while extending support to both Biopython 1.78 and 1.79. I didn't prepare a merge request though, as I'm still feeling a bit uncomfortable about my approach which I deem heavy, and believe you probably would have a more elegant approach to fix the issue. Of course feel free to use the patch as is if you feel it is appropriate.
In hope this helps, Have a nice day :)