[Biopython-dev] [Bug 2833] Features insertion on previous bioentry_id

[bugzilla-daemon at portal.open-bio.org]

http://bugzilla.open-bio.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2833





------- Comment #21 from biopython-bugzilla at maubp.freeserve.co.uk  2009-06-02 13:58 EST -------
(In reply to comment #20)
> 
> What i think... 
>  1) the solution is almost correct
>  2) but we have for sure to consider both rules because ("i tried") and
>     they work fully independetly.. so we need to check both rules. 

It would be odd for someone to delete one rule but not the other. But yes, we
should test for both.

>  3) the unicity is related to the biodatabase, so i can add 2 record with
>     identical accession, or identifier or both... but different biodatabase
>     and this works perfectly.

Good.

>  3) At the end i would like to add also a warning because the presence 
>     of the rules cause an overhead into insertion because trigger other 
>     queries.... (and it could be convenient to inform...) 

Yes, having a warning (even if Biopython can be made to cope with the rules)
seems sensible.

I've just updated CVS to check for either of the bioentry rules and issue a
warning (based on Cymon's patch). Adding the work around with the extra query
would be the next step (at which point the warning text would need updating).

Peter


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.open-bio.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.