We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
open
Currently, for files, we hard code the extensions (.bigWig/.bw/.bigBed/.bb). Seems that this is worked around (https://github.com/Bio2Byte/tools-iuc/blob/df9c285dddde7d901823c608c8d7dab971224b5b/tools/bigwig_outlier_bed/bigwig_outlier_bed.py#L115)
Would be good to offer a bit more flexibility. A couple options:
type
bigwig
bigbed
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Preferably it would just rely on the first 4 magic bytes to determine if it is a bigwig or bigbed file and not look at the extension at all: https://github.com/jackh726/bigtools/blame/master/bigtools/src/bbi/bbiread.rs#L657-L664
Probably having that code in a separate function that would return if a file is a bigWig or bigBed file, would be useful.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Yes, that's covered under (2). Pretty trivial to do.
I did add IIRC a GenericBBIFile somewhere that does this.
No branches or pull requests
Currently, for files, we hard code the extensions (.bigWig/.bw/.bigBed/.bb). Seems that this is worked around (https://github.com/Bio2Byte/tools-iuc/blob/df9c285dddde7d901823c608c8d7dab971224b5b/tools/bigwig_outlier_bed/bigwig_outlier_bed.py#L115)
Would be good to offer a bit more flexibility. A couple options:
type
parameter (bigwig
,bigbed
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: