-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
[WIP] Support Regulatory Fusions #1176
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
9afcd43 to
6d8e19c
Compare
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def regulatory_status_set_correctly(record) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
This introduces schema support for regulatory fusions.
Still todo before this can be merged:
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.