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

SDEV-4155 - switch to source.displayName for Pharmacogenomic filterin… #116

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dustinbleile
Copy link
Contributor

…g - so same properties can be used to filter pori_ipr_python kbmatches. Replaced PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_EXCLUDE_LIST with GSC_PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_DISPLAYNAME_EXCLUDE_LIST.

…g - so same properties can be used to filter pori_ipr_python kbmatches. Replaced PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_EXCLUDE_LIST with GSC_PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_DISPLAYNAME_EXCLUDE_LIST.
@dustinbleile
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like the updates for black will need to be done first, before these github builds will work.

graphkb/genes.py Outdated
],
},
ignore_cache=False,
):
if record["source"]: # type: ignore
if record["source"]["name"].lower() in PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_EXCLUDE_LIST: # type: ignore
if record["source"]["displayName"] in GSC_PHARMACOGENOMIC_SOURCE_DISPLAYNAME_EXCLUDE_LIST: # type: ignore
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we make the exclude list passable as a parameter?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, done.
But let's not worry too much about this, given Yaoqin's statements on the ticket, about using other methods to select.

Copy link
Member

@mathieulemieux mathieulemieux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good.
In general we should be using the name property which is guaranteed to be unique, but following SDEV-4155 discussion, I'm understanding it's not an option right now with IPR.

@elewis2 elewis2 self-requested a review February 29, 2024 19:20
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.

4 participants