-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Add SBO terms #667
Add SBO terms #667
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #667 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 91.01% 91.00% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 81 82 +1
Lines 2004 2012 +8
===========================================
+ Hits 1824 1831 +7
- Misses 180 181 +1
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
Co-authored-by: Mirek Kratochvil <[email protected]>
/format |
✔️ Auto-formatting triggered by this comment succeeded, commited as 968804b |
/format |
✔️ Auto-formatting triggered by this comment succeeded, commited as 3855710 |
/format |
✔️ Auto-formatting triggered by this comment succeeded, commited as 52ecb09 |
/format |
✔️ Auto-formatting triggered by this comment succeeded, commited as aade33c |
/format |
✔️ Auto-formatting triggered by this comment succeeded, commited as 7db2516 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
SBO is a systematic naming convention. We should use it to look for reactions instead of guessing based on naming. Right now just add the ontology and a few
is_xxx
functions, but for 2.0 I propose to only using sbo terms in functions likefind_exchange_reactions
. This removes the footgun of assumingfind_xxx
is robust (it isn't because it depends onlooks_like
)