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

add qualitative workflows #732

Open
mihai-sysbio opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

add qualitative workflows #732

mihai-sysbio opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@mihai-sysbio
Copy link
Member

mihai-sysbio commented Nov 28, 2023

The GitHub Action workflows that are set up in the repository are informative. They have highlighted accidental mistakes and typos upon which corrective actions were decided to be followed. However, they are mostly limited to model structure and file format. Only more recently have functional checks been added, i.e., metabolic task checks.

What seems to be still missing are more diverse Action workflows around simulations. More recently, this discussed in the release review of 1.17. The way I see it, these are very important, as they would act as a mirror of the changes in the dynamic behavior the model as a result of the changes that are being introduced.

If there were a super easy way to do this, it would have already been done. My aim here is to make a first step and open the discussion, hoping to reach some actionable conclusions.

@haowang-bioinfo
Copy link
Member

@mihai-sysbio thanks for bringing up this interesting topic of mirroring the resulted dynamic behavior from the changes introduced

I'm afraid this is too general to implement, could you help to further clarify what do you specifically suggest, and maybe what to begin with?

@mihai-sysbio
Copy link
Member Author

I would start from #675
Later, it'd be more interested in running FVA with COBREXA, but for that a model extraction/contextualization method needs to be used, e.g., tINIT and the like.

@haowang-bioinfo
Copy link
Member

haowang-bioinfo commented Nov 28, 2023

I would start from #675

to merge #675, the error message should be somehow resolved, probably by generating more concise output?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants