Skip to content

Conversation

@acoffman
Copy link
Member

@acoffman acoffman commented Jan 3, 2025

This introduces schema support for regulatory fusions.

Still todo before this can be merged:

  • modify algorithm for VICC compliant name to order partners based on which is the regulatory partner
  • UI/client side mutation for creating regulatory fusions

We aren't using it directly yet but many of the regulatory fusion terms are SOID terms, so this also adds that linkage in case we want to leverage it in the future.

@acoffman acoffman added the new-feature PR Label for newly added features. Will appear in release notes. label Jan 3, 2025
@acoffman acoffman force-pushed the regulatory-fusions branch from 9afcd43 to 6d8e19c Compare January 3, 2025 21:55
end
end

def regulatory_status_set_correctly(record)
Copy link
Contributor

@susannasiebert susannasiebert Mar 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should also add validation somewhere in this validator that two partners can't both be multiple and/or unknown. This is kinda covered by at_least_one_gene_id in a roundabout way but not explicitly.

Copy link
Contributor

@susannasiebert susannasiebert Mar 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we should consider switching the order of the 5' Partner and 3' Partner description items in case the 3' Partner is regulatory (to match the feature name). Same for the order of the coordinates.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

new-feature PR Label for newly added features. Will appear in release notes.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants