Skip to content
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

Updated SynGO models from geneontology/syngo-go-cams#2 #235

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 14, 2022
Merged

Conversation

dustine32
Copy link
Contributor

Intended for merge into master whenever @vanaukenk or other testers approve this is OK to go.

This will have effects in the GO pipeline related to geneontology/go-site#1847:

  1. ECO codes updated in Some SynGO evidence codes are no longer children of IDA syngo2lego_data_conversion#5 will allow these (previously failing) annotations to pass QC and so will increase annotation count.
  2. Increase in SynGO models since last update, 2196->3241 will also increase annotation count substantially. Mostly in mouse but likely also in other SynGO-annotated organisms.

@dustine32 dustine32 requested review from vanaukenk and kltm June 9, 2022 19:01
@vanaukenk
Copy link
Contributor

@thomaspd - please let me know if you plan to look over these models on noctua-dev with Frank before they go onto noctua-production. Thanks.

@dustine32 @kltm

@dustine32
Copy link
Contributor Author

Added missing model SYNGO:1805. Details in geneontology/syngo-go-cams#4.

@dustine32
Copy link
Contributor Author

Frank approves! From 2022-06-30 email:

I've reviewd a dozen random models on the noctua-dev site you linked, looks fine to me !

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Jun 30, 2022

Great--this has already been added to the list for July: geneontology/noctua#782

@dustine32
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kltm I see there are now conflicts from the last outage auto-commit flush 9dabc15 but I can just reapply the SYNGO_ models to fix. Should I do this now or wait until just before the 2022-07-14 merge/outage?

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Jun 30, 2022

Yes, reapplication would make the most sense.
This will keep happening as we do a reordering to make the diffs easier.
In the future, if this was just an "add on" repo, we could avoid that.

Copy link
Member

@kltm kltm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assuming we're good if we can merge.

@kltm kltm merged commit efb9503 into master Jul 14, 2022
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