Skip to content

antismash json2gff module#145

Open
Ales-ibt wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
feature/antismash_convert
Open

antismash json2gff module#145
Ales-ibt wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
feature/antismash_convert

Conversation

@Ales-ibt
Copy link
Contributor

I have created a module that we are using in multiple pipelines to transform the antismash result from json format into gff format. To put the module in the right place, I had to move the antismash module one level inside the antismash directory, so you will see the renamed files in the list of files to review. Many of those files have changes due to pre-commit like space removing and so on. Please ignore them and take a look just to the files in the antismash/json2gff directory.

Thanks for reviewing!

Copy link
Contributor

@vagkaratzas vagkaratzas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left a comment for snapshots. Also, the new json test file is 5.4 MB...Can you get a waaaaaaaay smaller one please? Should be goot to ship otherwise

assertAll(
{ assert process.success },
{ assert snapshot(process.out.gff).match("gff") },
{ assert snapshot(process.out.versions_mgnifypipelinestoolkit).match("versions") }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are you creating multiple snapshots per test file? You can put all assertions in one snapshot per test case. Same for the stub tests.
Example:

then {
            assert process.success
            assertAll(
                { assert snapshot(
                    process.out.gff,
                    process.out.findAll { key, val -> key.startsWith("versions")}
                ).match() }
            )
        }

This then block should be the standard.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that was a kind of a workaround before the schemas were updated for using topics. I had fix it now

Copy link
Member

@mberacochea mberacochea left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @Ales-ibt. It looks good, I left some comments

@Ales-ibt Ales-ibt requested a review from mberacochea February 25, 2026 15:16
@Ales-ibt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vagkaratzas and @mberacochea
Thanks a lot for your comments. I had addressed the requested changes, do you mind to approve at least one of you, please?

Copy link
Contributor

@vagkaratzas vagkaratzas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Copy link
Member

@mberacochea mberacochea left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One thing to decide before merging... if we need/want to revert all the changes the linter did on the antiSMASH test files

Comment on lines -3 to -10
3 # kernel parameter -d
0.00070915 # kernel parameter -g
1 # kernel parameter -s
1 # kernel parameter -r
empty# kernel parameter -u
408 # highest feature index
946 # number of training documents
135 # number of support vectors plus 1
Copy link
Member

@mberacochea mberacochea Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Prettier modified a bunch of files... loads of them. Maybe we should revert them?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But tests are passing. I am wondering why these changes weren't made before by pre-commit?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

they seem harmless.. so let's merge

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants