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 have been happily using GAT (gat-run & gat-compare) over the past months - thanks a lot for it!
I recently updated all of my code so that I could keep a more informative string in the "track" column in my gat-run output. However, when I got to gat-compare I no longer got any results. Inspecting the code it seems that the things around lines 264-270 of gat-compare, the code assumes that the "track" column only contains the string "merged". This would be the case when using --ignore-segment-tracks as I was doing previously, but now with my more "informative" track strings, this blocks things.
Would it be possible to add to the code so that - similar to what is done in the in-file-comparison part - the list of track values is established and iterated over, to remove this hard-coded limitation?
Thank you in advance for your help!
Best regards,
-- Alex
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear Andreas,
I have been happily using GAT (gat-run & gat-compare) over the past months - thanks a lot for it!
I recently updated all of my code so that I could keep a more informative string in the "track" column in my gat-run output. However, when I got to gat-compare I no longer got any results. Inspecting the code it seems that the things around lines 264-270 of gat-compare, the code assumes that the "track" column only contains the string "merged". This would be the case when using --ignore-segment-tracks as I was doing previously, but now with my more "informative" track strings, this blocks things.
Would it be possible to add to the code so that - similar to what is done in the in-file-comparison part - the list of track values is established and iterated over, to remove this hard-coded limitation?
Thank you in advance for your help!
Best regards,
-- Alex
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: