Closed michaelbarton closed 7 years ago
Merging #109 into master will decrease coverage by
0.25%
. The diff coverage is33.33%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #109 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 76.72% 76.47% -0.26%
==========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 795 799 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 610 611 +1
- Misses 185 188 +3
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
pyfaidx/cli.py | 47.84% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
pyfaidx/__init__.py | 88.18% <40%> (-0.45%) |
:arrow_down: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5eb0769...5da8e0c. Read the comment docs.
Hey @michaelbarton. This looks like a great contribution, and I have no problem merging it. Thanks for taking the time to make the change - I'll push out a new minor version!
Thanks Matt for this library. I have been using it recently a project and I found it very useful. https://gitlab.com/michaelbarton/gaet/
Looks like a pretty cool tool you've got there. The idea is the assess the quality of assemblies based on previous feature annotation? What's a common use case?
Yes that's exactly it. If you have a reference assembly and you want to benchmark an assembler you can compare the generated assembly's annotations with that of the reference's annotation. We're using it to determine which assemblers produce complete rRNA operons and so forth.
For example we genomes for which we have both pacbio and illumina sequencing data. We use the pacbio assembly as the reference since they are generally very high quality, then benchmark various assemblers using the illumina data.
How is this? I think this is what you requested.