Skip to content
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

On the off chance someone doesn't filter -- non-explicit error for protein_quant #315

Open
rarichardson92 opened this issue Apr 10, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@rarichardson92
Copy link
Collaborator

protein_quant will error "row names supplied are of the wrong length" if someone passes biomolecules that have zero observations

@rarichardson92
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Possible fix: Could add a line to run something like

"omicsData <- applyFilt(molecule_filter(omicsData), omicsData, min_num = 1)"

right before returning the object for the as.XX functions, throwing a warning for removed biomolecules

@clabornd
Copy link
Contributor

Yea that solution seems good. I'm more a fan of just a warning about empty biomolecules, but I guess this aligns with how were handling imd_anova with the auto-application of imdanova_filter.

@clabornd
Copy link
Contributor

So actually I was mistaken: imd_anova doesn't auto filter biomolecules, it just checks if imdanova_filter was applied and if not applies one just to get how many/which biomolecules were removed to throw an informative warning (changed in last release).

I opted for just a more informative warning message for imd_anova, would it make sense to just have a more informative warning for protein quant? e.g. "Your data contains biomolecules with no non-missing values: , please apply a molecule filter to remove these biomolecules before protein_quant"

@stratkg
Copy link
Contributor

stratkg commented May 21, 2024

What about this instead of the double negative? "Your data contains biomolecules not observed in any of the samples: , please apply a molecule filter to remove these biomolecules before protein_quant"

@clabornd
Copy link
Contributor

#323

Went with throwing an error. There might be a better place to check this, like in pre_flight or at the end of pmartR_filter_worker. Filtering maybe most logical since it's the likeliest place for this to occur....will go with this for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants