renamed files
Closed this issue · 4 comments
sjanssen2 commented
Is there a reason why you chose to not use the tree and placement files (.relabelled) that have the restored internal node labels? As far as I understand the code, Siavash assigns every node a unique ID and prefixed the original label with this ID. In a postprocessing step (a generated python program) those IDs get trimmed from the labels to restore their original values.
Thus, users don't see those IDs in e.g. the taxonomy labels of the reference.
wasade commented
No strong feelings. Present tree is not great for taxonomy
…On Nov 8, 2017 6:10 PM, "Stefan Janssen" ***@***.***> wrote:
https://github.com/wasade/q2-fragment-insertion/blob/
64d4b52/q2_fragment_
insertion/_insertion.py#L50
Is there a reason why you chose to not use the tree and placement files
(.relabelled) that have the restored internal node labels? As far as I
understand the code, Siavash assigns every node a unique ID and prefixed
the original label with this ID. In a postprocessing step (a generated
python program) those IDs get trimmed from the labels to restore their
original values.
Thus, users don't see those IDs in e.g. the taxonomy labels of the
reference.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5>, or mute the
thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAc8svp8YiR3RYDacZaejMoPyfzx6v0Xks5s0l8vgaJpZM4QXVRJ>
.
sjanssen2 commented
true, but I think more useful for end users than the non-renamed
wasade commented
Okay, sounds good. Okay with changing
…On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Stefan Janssen ***@***.***> wrote:
true, but I think more useful for end users than the non-renamed
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAc8soUCSFBgepeSuoIbwtHFSXt3i73fks5s0mPGgaJpZM4QXVRJ>
.