Make matching to an external library optional#297
Open
Conversation
Member
Author
|
@ErinWeisbart tested, should be good to go |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Especially as we move into multi-part barcodes and since matching is slow currently (certainly easy to accelerate somehow, though perhaps dicey to try doing that inside CellProfiler given its "quirks" with multiprocessing), @ErinWeisbart and I discussed whether it might make it sense to separate barcode CALLING from matching to a list of expected barcodes. We had not previously wanted the extra step, but as we build more workflows for doing this, an extra step may be less onerous than previously. This rewrite preserves the option to do either.