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

Should we remove individual asset arguments? #34

Open
nsheff opened this issue Aug 16, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Should we remove individual asset arguments? #34

nsheff opened this issue Aug 16, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@nsheff
Copy link
Member

nsheff commented Aug 16, 2019

There are really a lot of CLI args here. Should we consider removing these because they are managed by refgenie?

    parser.add_argument("--TSS-name", default=None,
                        dest="TSS_name", type=str,
                        help="file_name of TSS annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--pi-tss", default=None,
                        dest="ensembl_tss", type=str,
                        help="file_name of pause index TSS annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--pi-body", default=None,
                        dest="ensembl_gene_body", type=str,
                        help="file_name of pause index gene body annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--pre-name", default=None,
                        dest="pre_name", type=str,
                        help="file_name of pre-mRNA annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--anno-name", default=None,
                        dest="anno_name", type=str,
                        help="file_name of genomic annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--exon-name", default=None,
                        dest="exon_name", type=str,
                        help="file_name of exon annotation file.")

    parser.add_argument("--intron-name", default=None,
                        dest="intron_name", type=str,
                        help="file_name of intron annotation file.")
@nsheff nsheff added the question Further information is requested label Aug 16, 2019
@jpsmith5
Copy link
Collaborator

Still not sure which direction we want to go here. I believe you're likely correct, that it's probably superfluous to include these as options with the streamlining of refgenie handling all of these.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants