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
These are presently reported for both junction and segment IES features.
However for junction features, which are zero-length, ta_pointer_start equals start coordinate if the IES is bounded by a TA repeat. This results in coordinate for ta_pointer_start being correct for python zero-based numbering system but not for GFF.
For junction features, ta_pointer_end equals ta_pointer_start, which doesn't make sense either.
Maybe just have a ta_offset attribute that states how many bases the start/end coordinates need to be adjusted. This would then be robust against any change in coordinate systems and also be suitable for both insertions and deletions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
These are presently reported for both junction and segment IES features.
However for junction features, which are zero-length,
ta_pointer_start
equalsstart
coordinate if the IES is bounded by a TA repeat. This results in coordinate for ta_pointer_start being correct for python zero-based numbering system but not for GFF.For junction features,
ta_pointer_end
equalsta_pointer_start
, which doesn't make sense either.Maybe just have a
ta_offset
attribute that states how many bases the start/end coordinates need to be adjusted. This would then be robust against any change in coordinate systems and also be suitable for both insertions and deletions.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: