You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Different tabix versions turn out to have incompatible indexing behavior.
@FedericaBrando we can discuss which tabix version we want the next releases to use, then change the code to make it compatible with the new version if necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As of now we use pytabix package. This package is reimplementing tabix from htslib in c and c++ - very efficient. This means that it uses it's own version of tabix that does not specifically run any of the "official" tabix releases. By looking at one of the bug-fixing commits of the repo, I see some weird things:
The initial release was 0.1, then the bug fix was called 0.0.2. This does not make any sense, because logically speaking is like going back in time in terms of releases. What we are using - pytabix==0.0.2 is the actual bug-free pytabix version.
The "old" one - which is actually newer logically (0.1 > 0.0.2) has the bug. This lead to a MAJOR problem: when we do not specify the correct version of pytabix - we automatically download the older version because semantically is newer. You get this info only by looking at the code. The correct version should have been 0.1.2 - or 0.2.
The pytabix==0.0.2 correctly returns an output when querying positions that have same START and END.
Now - we have several options on how to proceed:
Document it and let the user (and ourselves) be aware of this problem - faster, we keep what we are doing
Try other packages that do the same as pytabix but more update and that could rely on the official tabix. - unknown, it could be faster if very easy to implement or slower based on the package we use.
Avoid using tabix. - slower, new implementation and solution needed
I think it is needed to note that pytabix has not been updated since 9 years - so we might see if it's safe to continue using this method or not.
Different tabix versions turn out to have incompatible indexing behavior.
@FedericaBrando we can discuss which tabix version we want the next releases to use, then change the code to make it compatible with the new version if necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: