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
I don't remember the exact logic intended but should the return be inside the eval to avoid the ambiguity? Here's my proposed solution - anyone want to look and test - it seems to run okay when I change locally and am trying out in some limited tests.
eval {
return $self->_fhcache( File::Spec->catfile($self->{dirname}, $file));
} or $self->throw( "Can't open file $file" );
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Seems like the logic is to die if the File::Spec->catfile($self->{dirname}, $file) call is performed; notably $@ isn't checked. I'm guessing it's okay to return from inside an eval, but I would do it something like the below, which is more explicit about the intent:
# completely untested
my $fh = eval {
$self->_fhcache( File::Spec->catfile($self->{dirname}, $file));
};
$self->throw( "Can't open file $file: $@" ) if $@;
return $fh;
I am seeing this warning as well. It occurs for me when the current version of VEP (103.1) is installed using Bioconda, and VEP throws the warning at startup every time.
This warning has been around for years. No one has dug in to fix though I
think. Should be harmless but let’s fix it ...
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 8:06 AM Alan Hoyle ***@***.***> wrote:
I am seeing this warning as well. It occurs for me when the current
version of VEP (103.1) is installed using Bioconda, and VEP throws the
warning at startup every time.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#355 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAL5O44R3QO3COZ62T6AQTTKGEF3ANCNFSM4XDZJ2QA>
.
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Jason Stajich - ***@***.***
This warning has shown up for years --
bioperl-live/lib/Bio/DB/IndexedBase.pm
Line 804 in 2b53e22
I don't remember the exact logic intended but should the return be inside the eval to avoid the ambiguity? Here's my proposed solution - anyone want to look and test - it seems to run okay when I change locally and am trying out in some limited tests.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: