[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 #22 from andrea at biodec.com  2009-06-02 14:15 EST -------
(In reply to comment #21)
> (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.
> 
very odd... and fully improbable.. but possible and it could rise
"noisy bugs" in future (i will slowly forget many of the things we are
speaking about) 

> >  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.

Also, in the worning, telling something about performance issues....

> 
> 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
> 
Thanks
andrea


-- 
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.