-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
[MISC] Alignment: aminoacid scoring scheme - lower case member constants #2599
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[MISC] Alignment: aminoacid scoring scheme - lower case member constants #2599
Conversation
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/seqan/seqan3/D173vmSyixxGMnKQ9EQAHzfG1fxy |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2599 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.27% 98.27%
=======================================
Files 273 273
Lines 10795 10795
=======================================
Hits 10609 10609
Misses 186 186
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
#### Alignment | ||
|
||
* The member constants of `seqan3::aminoacid_similarity_matrix` were changed to lower case | ||
([\#....](https://github.com/seqan/seqan3/pull/....)): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
([\#....](https://github.com/seqan/seqan3/pull/....)): | |
([\#2599](https://github.com/seqan/seqan3/pull/2599)): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am confused by this suggestion. Arn't you the author and should add this change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I marked it for me to make the change when I received your review. Sorry for the confusion.
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
#### Alignment | ||
|
||
* The member constants of `seqan3::aminoacid_similarity_matrix` were changed to lower case | ||
([\#....](https://github.com/seqan/seqan3/pull/....)): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am confused by this suggestion. Arn't you the author and should add this change?
@@ -28,33 +28,39 @@ namespace seqan3 | |||
* | |||
* This enum provides IDs for amino acid similarity matrixes of the | |||
* [BLOSUM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOSUM) and [PAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_accepted_mutation) | |||
* families. | |||
* families (last access 04.05.2021). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not a big fan of this (in this context, having a bibliography is something else :)):
- No one will ever update the dates even if they check the links
- We don't use any information from the links, it's just some
\seealso
basically - Access dates are implicitly stored in the git history
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree with @eseiler; if we can somehow automatically add that date I would love that, but manual management isn't feasible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm okay with undoing it. I just want to point out that I had discussed and started this in another PR with @smehringer and @MitraDarja.
-> #2290 (comment)
Why do you think you do not update this date when you edit the documentation for it?
And wouldn't an automatic check be error-prone? Then one checks only whether the page is there, but not whether it still contains what we have taken over or to which we want to refer?
EDIT: or do you especially mean this link?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The "last access" only has to be updated if the enum provided IDs on wikipedia change. Isn't this very helpful? One could just look at the wikipedia diff from 04.05.2021 until today and see if anything has changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The "last access" only has to be updated if the enum provided IDs on wikipedia change. Isn't this very helpful? One could just look at the wikipedia diff from 04.05.2021 until today and see if anything has changed.
But the IDs come from some paper, it's not an invention of Wikipedia. The papers won't change and to check for some change would require you to manually look into it. I don't see this happen.
If it's not automatic, it's not reliable (include order, first brief
or author
, |
at end or beginning of lines, how are lambdas indented, are the used URLs at all valid?).
Why do you think you do not update this date when you edit the documentation for it?
Easy to overlook if I don't even touch text in vicinity of the URL; then you would rely on someone else to know that there are links and verify them. And we have quite a few of them....
It would be nice to have, but it is also something that is quite useless if not carefully curated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand the objection, but I would trust us that one gets into the habit of looking for such links. But I have no strong feelings and have undone it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So if I understand correctly, your objection is actually against citing Wikipedia and rather cite the original paper?
test/api_stability/3.0.2/0002-NOAPI-DETAIL-MISC-Remove-top-level-scoring-scheme-de.patch
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
604e198
to
a4eb444
Compare
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ index ef141a7e9..7b0927215 100644 | |||
- seqan3::align_cfg::method_global, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
please don't change patches, if they don't work they need to be changed differently :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nearly done, api stability patches shouldn't be changed :)
Signed-off-by: Lydia Buntrock <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lydia Buntrock <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lydia Buntrock <[email protected]>
a4eb444
to
40d62c7
Compare
Resolves seqan/product_backlog#317