-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
EFO terms showing blank in the download file #1577
Comments
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/api/ontologies/efo/terms?short_form=EFO_0600068 as for the rest, the problem is that the replacement already exists in the catalog… fixing this will require this obviously needs to be carefully done.. preferably programatically. |
discussed with @sprintell the possibility of pointing the references from the obsolete to the replacement efo, in case the replacement already exists, that would work for mongo, but once we replace the reference to the obsolete efo and replace it, once Sync runs it will attempt to delete the obsolete efo but will run into errors as there are still references to it in Oracle. what we can do is maybe flag the trait as obsolete and we add a replacement field in mongo, and the Sync will attempt to do the replacement? |
Full list with errors is here: |
fixed the majority by updating the EFO version we use |
We were pointing to an old version of EFO as a fix for previous issue, now updated to use latest version |
In the last DR, Mapped trait is showing blank record in the studies and associations download files for ~126K associations (16% of total) and ~15K studies (11% of total). To the best of my knowledge, these EFO terms are displayed in the UI, but the links to OLS do not work.
472 EFOs were obsoleted in last DR, and 431 of these are showing blank where they previously had an EFO term. Examples are EFO_0005852, replaced with OBA_VT0000803; EFO_0005918, replaced with OBA_2050271.
These recently obsoleted terms account for around 60% of the studies with blank mapping.
Of the remainder, some were also blank in the previous release. Example are OBA_2050164, OBA_2050154
Note, not all OBA terms have problems, here is an example of one that appears correctly: OBA_2042195
I am still investigating the rest.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: