issues
search
open2c
/
pairtools
Extract 3D contacts (.pairs) from sequencing alignments
MIT License
104
stars
32
forks
source link
post-v1.0.0 proposals and issues (header post)
#139
Open
agalitsyna
opened
2 years ago
agalitsyna
commented
2 years ago
Needs discussion/fix:
[ ] bam annotation?
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/67
[x]
report mapq in the stats:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/80
(or extend to any specified additional fields?)
This was actually implemented in the 1.0.0 release...
[x] support Python 3.10: not possible due to conda problem with glibc
[ ] single-cell walkthrough: too detailed
[ ] more extended description of pair types standards, maybe a walkthrough (see question:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/112
, also
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/68
,
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/104
)
[ ] Add tests for compression-decompression:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/51
[ ] Add tests for example_pipeline @golobor :
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/35
[x] Line split fix for non-pysam parsers:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/145
Postponed but might require discussion.fix at some point:
[ ] duplicate the data processing history (currently stored in @PG fields) in #command fields of the .pairs header:, declined for now:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/70
[ ] suggestion to set the default temporary folder to ./ instead of $TMPDIR, declined for now
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/84
[ ] sort is parallel, but someone reported that it is not for their case, no reproducible example:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/72
[ ] pairtools subsampling is present, not clear what might be the modifications:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/66
[ ] unified way of changing the separator, not clear why it's needed and what are the use cases:
https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/50
Needs discussion/fix:
report mapq in the stats: https://github.com/open2c/pairtools/issues/80 (or extend to any specified additional fields?)This was actually implemented in the 1.0.0 release...Postponed but might require discussion.fix at some point: