Closed lvclark closed 3 years ago
Hi, thanks for reporting this issue and a potential solution. Maybe it would make more sense for the script to have an option to consider the filtering p-value instead of the lrt one. This way it is more explicit which pvalue is actually used and can avoid confusion. Does that make sense?
@mgalardini Should we turn on travis on branches/PRs? I guess it would be useful to see the tests here (I also just noticed I had broken them with a recent commit, but have fixed again now)
Sure, that makes sense, let me do it then
I'm not sure why it does not show up here, but Travis is running tests for PRs: https://travis-ci.org/github/mgalardini/pyseer/builds/741672174
Quick search suggests the solution is to remove and add again -- a classic
@lvclark Would you be able to merge master into this to pull in the test fix?
Ah, of course. I did something similar, but unsure if that works. Will check later again
@johnlees Ok, I've done the merge!
@mgalardini Adding an option to the script makes sense. I wasn't sure if you'd actually want to merge this PR, but I wanted to at least bring the issue to your attention!
I'd suggest that we merge this, and then add the script option. I can do this shortly
Using output from the elastic net model, I was getting an error because no p-value correcting for population structure was reported. This change allows
summarize_annotations
to use the p-value that doesn't correct for population structure in that case.