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

Using checkpoints for a single workflow #95

Open
wants to merge 130 commits into
base: fast-cmdline
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

danilexn
Copy link
Member

@danilexn danilexn commented Jan 23, 2024

I adapted the workflow so it only needs to call a single target rule, using checkpoints.

I have tested with the (tiny) test data and some real mouse brain samples - with and without spatial pucks, with and without puck collection, with and without meshing. Tests were run for the main, merging and downsampling workflows.

Important: I have tested all with snakemake 7.32.4. Previous versions (especially 5.x-6.x) might not work - workflow stops unexpectedly with apparently no error.

To be done before merging:

  • There is an issue with the qc reports of puck_collections. When there are two run modes for a single sample, one that meshes and other that doesn't, the qc_sheet input parameters contain files from both run modes, and they have different number of columns (e.g., meshed obs do not have n_joined, and order of columns is different). I am fixing this.
  • Need to see if the current tests are suitable for this (should be, the results do not change, just the number of target rules)
  • Double check merging - generate pucks

@danilexn danilexn added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 23, 2024
@danilexn danilexn mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2024
marvin-jens and others added 29 commits September 16, 2024 15:22
…t for DGE (probably ancient bead-related feature) which fails with newer pandas anyway.
Removing defaults channel
…'default' which also exists in 0.7.9 config.yaml
…. Needs proper resource handling in the future
…e 4MB as long as we do not properly treat it as a resource
After long testing and many bugfixes we now have a new 0.8 candidate with this branch. In agreement with Dani and Nikos, I merge this PR into master.
@danilexn
Copy link
Member Author

danilexn commented Dec 2, 2024

After merging with current master, this needs testing again

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants