-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
ot_65/ot_65/ot_65.json missing a bunch of otus #2
Comments
it looks like this is a couple of problems (at least). I'm not sure how the original nexson was written this way (it seems to have been an issue from the beginning, so it could be in the merge_otu function). |
Are we assuming that I'm planning to chase opentree bugs later this week. If I dig up an old version for testing, I'll make a note of it here. |
no. I don't think that it guarantees that it will do that, but these OTUs are referred to by leafs in the tree - making those leaves unuseable... |
Yep, not sure how I missed that. This is definitely a Bad Thing. |
The validator was not checking that the otu fields resolved to an otu. That was a major oversight. That fix let me check the files in the repo. This may be the only study with this problem. But the rest of the files seem OK with the exception of some cases of the studyYear being a string rather than integer in ot_192.json ot_57.json ot_63.json ot_66.json ot_67.json ot_68.json ot_70.json ot_77.json). Those errors may prevent the otu-not-existing error from being reported. I'll try to fix these files soon so that I can check them more thoroughly. |
Looks like the range otu37 through otu52 is not included in the nexson, but are referenced by tree nodes. All other files in the repo seem fine in this regard.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: