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
We realized there might be an issue with mapping qc file names/metrics back to the metadata table in a way that imposes 1:1 relationships between a given sample and its metrics. For example, if two PIs are running RNAseq experiments and the sample prefix is 'Control_1' for both projects, we don't have a way to know which 'Control_1' a given fastqc.zip file is referencing. To try to account for this, we are adding a 'repo_id' field to metadata.yaml since this should help us distinguish which 'Control_1' sample is which.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We realized there might be an issue with mapping qc file names/metrics back to the metadata table in a way that imposes 1:1 relationships between a given sample and its metrics. For example, if two PIs are running RNAseq experiments and the sample prefix is 'Control_1' for both projects, we don't have a way to know which 'Control_1' a given fastqc.zip file is referencing. To try to account for this, we are adding a 'repo_id' field to metadata.yaml since this should help us distinguish which 'Control_1' sample is which.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: