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

Update processing.py replace_dic ß : b #35

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into from
Closed

Update processing.py replace_dic ß : b #35

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

mattias-erhardsson
Copy link
Contributor

I've seen the german ß used instead of the greek β, this should help canonicalize this nomenclature dialect. This is my first pull request, I'm new to python, and I do not fully grasp how glycowork works so please forgive me if the fix isn't as simple as just adding ß : b in replace_dic in def canonicalize_iupac(glycan) in processing.py.

Bribak and others added 11 commits February 25, 2022 08:39
merge dev into master for version update
merge dev into master for 0.7
add dev optional install for quarto
merge dev into master for version update
update chars to the libr format to fix LectinOracle_flex
merge for version 1.0 update
merge into master for v1.0.1
merge for version update
I've seen the german ß used instead of the greek β, this should help canonicalize this nomenclature dialect.
@Bribak
Copy link
Contributor

Bribak commented Feb 21, 2024

This is an excellent addition, thanks for taking the time! It has also been done correctly but please merge into the dev branch, not the master branch (as the dev branch is the one for active development)

Be sure to locally run nbdev_prepare prior to merging but I think it should be okay

@mattias-erhardsson mattias-erhardsson changed the base branch from master to dev February 21, 2024 12:23
@Bribak
Copy link
Contributor

Bribak commented Feb 21, 2024

The tests all look great but the file conflict issue (https://github.com/BojarLab/glycowork/pull/35/conflicts) is that replace_dic was already modified on the dev branch, so this would roll back the addition on the dev branch, since it was initially based on master. I'd recommend either re-doing it with a fresh pull of dev or doing a second commit to add the addition from dev

Thanks!

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