Skip to content
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

Demuxalot: Adjust script for v. 0.4.0 #46

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mschilli87
Copy link
Contributor

Demuxalot changed its API between the version currently included in the Demuxafy Singularity image (v. 0.2.0) and the latest (as of 2024-02-22) version (v. 0.4.0):

Notably, the only_singlets parameter of the predict_posteriors function was dropped (see
arogozhnikov/demuxalot@3939e81). However, as far as I can tell, as long as the doublet_prior parameter is non-zero, the it defaults to the behaviour of only_singlets = FALSE (cf. arogozhnikov/demuxalot@2b1535b).

As Demuxafy's Demuxalot.py uses, only_singlets = FALSE and doublet_prior defaults to 0.35 (i.e. a non-zero value), simply dropping the (now) unsupported parameter restores compatibility of Demuxafy's Demuxalot.py with the current version of Demuxalot.

I have verified that the adjusted version of Demuxafy's Demuxalot.py works with Demuxalot v. 0.4.0 by running the corresponding tutorial (with the reduced dataset) as a test case.
The final (refined) assignments (as per assignments_refined.tsv.gz) were identical to those obtained by running the current version from the Demuxafy Singularity image.


As usual with my PR's this one adds a final newline to the script due to my editor configuration.

@drneavin: I could not find any place in the repository that actually defines which version of Demuxalot to include in the Demuxafy Singularity image. Else I would have bumped the version accordingly.
So please ensure that upon mergin this PR you also update Demuxafy via pip.
If I just missed it, please point me to it so I can modify this PR accordingly.

Demuxalot changed its API between the version currently included in the
Demuxafy Singularity image (v. 0.2.0) and the latest (as of 2024-02-22)
version (v. 0.4.0):

Notably, the `only_singlets` parameter of the `predict_posteriors`
function was dropped (see
arogozhnikov/demuxalot@3939e81).
However, as far as I can tell, as long as the `doublet_prior` parameter
is non-zero, the it defaults to the behaviour of `only_singlets = FALSE`
(cf. arogozhnikov/demuxalot@2b1535b).

As Demuxafy's `Demuxalot.py` uses, `only_singlets = FALSE` and
`doublet_prior` defaults to `0.35` (i.e. a non-zero value), simply
dropping the (now) unsupported parameter restores compatibility of
Demuxafy's `Demuxalot.py` with the current version of Demuxalot.

I have verified that the adjusted version of Demuxafy's `Demuxalot.py`
works with Demuxalot v. 0.4.0 by running the corresponding tutorial
(with the reduced dataset) as a test case.
The final (refined) assignments (as per `assignments_refined.tsv.gz`)
were identical to those obtained by running the current version from the
Demuxafy Singularity image.
@mschilli87
Copy link
Contributor Author

mschilli87 commented Apr 15, 2024

@drneavin: Any chance to get this (and subsequently PR #48) merged and and into a new release?
This is the only thing that's holding me back from analysing all our data and I'd really prefer to just cite your paper along a specific release version over discussing my custom patches on top of your work in my methods section. 😉

If there is anything you'd like me to improve about any of my PR, please let me know.

Thank you for all the work you have put into this.

PS: I just noticed that I wanted to post this on PR #47, which included (and IMHO improves upon) this PR. I am converting this one to a draft to make it harder for you to accidentally merged the 'wrong' PR and having to wait for a rebase from my side before moving forward with PR #48.

@mschilli87 mschilli87 marked this pull request as draft April 15, 2024 13:25
@drneavin
Copy link
Owner

Hi @mschilli87, sorry I haven't been able to address this due to other projects and limitations on time.

I'll prioritize this early next week - already on my to-do list

@mschilli87
Copy link
Contributor Author

@drneavin: Thank you for the response and heads up. I did not mean to rush you. I understand how this job can be at times. I just wanted to know if there is anything I can do and if I can hope for a timely review. Early next week sounds great to me. Thank you.

@mschilli87 mschilli87 closed this May 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants