[Bioperl-l] DB.t failures
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Feb 15 14:46:07 EST 2007
On Feb 15, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Chris Fields wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> Chris Fields wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>>>> Jay Hannah wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>>>>>> DB.t is failing with BIOPERLDEBUG set. Apparently, we are no
>>>>>> getting sequences back from NCBI in the order we requested
>>>>>> them in
>>>>>> batch mode.
>>> Okay, I committed a fix for that. I hope there are many users who
>>> depend on the returned sequence order for anything!
>> s/are/aren't/ ?
> Yes, my oops.
>> I suspect there might be, and its certainly a reasonable
>> assumption to
>> make. Did you not see an easy way of maintaining the order?
> I haven't looked (been busy the last few days), but I think there is
> a way via efetch.
> We could add in something to the default base URL if there is
> something or (probably better) add a sort_order() method to designate
> a particular sort order, defaulting to the old order if not set.
Delving in to it further, the problem only occurs when using
get_seq_stream() directly in batch mode, which is likely only used by
developers for testing. The sort issue only pops up when eposting
IDs using that mode; retrieved seqs are returned in a different order
than through a direct efetch query (the default with get_Stream* or
get_Seq* methods). No use of the 'sort' parameter works to get
around that problem, not a complete surprise since it is supposed to
only work for PubMed, but since the method is rarely used I'll just
leave the bullet-proofed tests alone.
More information about the Bioperl-l