Created by: magaliruffier
- Filling out the template is required. Any pull request that does not include enough information to be reviewed in a timely manner may be closed at the maintainers' discretion;
- Review the contributing guidelines for this repository; remember in particular:
- do not modify code without testing for regression
- provide simple unit tests to test the changes
- if you change the schema you must patch the test databases as well, see Updating the schema
- the PR must not fail unit testing
Using one or more sentences, describe in detail the proposed changes. The RFAM parser does not capture all required fields when run as part of the eHive xref pipeline. This is because the file is read line by line from disk, while the information for a single entry is split across multiple lines. The proposed change groups the lines in logical blocks representing a single RFAM entry.
Describe the problem. Please provide an example representing the motivation behind the need for having these changes in place. Since the move to the eHive-based xref pipeline, all RFAM xrefs are missing descriptions and their label is identical to the accession when it should not be. The proposed fix ensures both label and description are stored in the database and can be displayed on the browser. This was reported by a user who compared the same gene across two zebrafish assemblies, see http://apr2018.archive.ensembl.org/Danio_rerio/Transcript/Summary?db=core;g=ENSDARG00000082665;r=25:8247670-8247787;t=ENSDART00000116947 versus http://dec2017.archive.ensembl.org/Danio_rerio/Transcript/Summary?db=core;g=ENSDARG00000082665;r=25:8247670-8247787;t=ENSDART00000116947
If applicable, describe the advantages the changes will have. Useful information from RFAM is correctly stored and displayed to our users.
If applicable, describe any possible undesirable consequence of the changes. The proposed fix is not the prettiest and results in storing multiple lines in memory. However, the RFAM file is small so this should not have a major impact on memory requirements.
Have you added/modified unit tests to test the changes? NA, the current xref pipeline does not have unit tests. The pipeline was run with and without the fix though to ensure the data is captured correctly.
If so, do the tests pass/fail? NA
Have you run the entire test suite and no regression was detected? NA