GWAS function output file to tab separated about eggla HOT 9 CLOSED

Should we also properly name the file?
.tsv.gz

from eggla.

We are now using easyQC for the quality control and I originally named the converted files as .tsv; it could not read them. I don't know how the QC will be carried out in the next wave but if they are going to use easyQC it would be good if the filenames were given in usable form.

from eggla.

If I understand, the idea is to be sure the GWAS results files correspond to what easyQC expects?

renaming txt.gz to tsv.gz should not change anything, it will simply ensure you know it's tab-separated directly from the file extension.
So does easyQC really wants files to have "txt" extension in their names?

from eggla.

Yes, this was the issue. I could not find in the documentation a list of file extensions it accepts, but it did not work with tab separated tsv.gz files, and after changing nothing else but the name to txt.gz it was fine.

from eggla.

That's pretty badly implemented in my opinion, but ok, let's go for txt.gz then.

from eggla.

I'll make the change/update later this week.

By the way, feel free to make a pull request for these things.
I this case, it's adding sep = "\t" in the following line of code.

from eggla.

Yeah, I have started to feel like it is a bit out of date with some features but that's the way we went with the QC. As said, I think someone else might be working with the QC in the next wave with different software but I think for now the idea was to react if there are some things that come up with the analysis on these six cohorts.

Re pull request I am sorry I am really useless with git(hub) and afraid of touching anything! I have been meaning to learn some basics with this project but haven't found the time for it. It is still high in my list I know it would help with other work as well but meanwhile I am sorry for making your harder with being like this :)

from eggla.

Yeah, I have started to feel like it is a bit out of date with some features but that's the way we went with the QC. As said, I think someone else might be working with the QC in the next wave with different software but I think for now the idea was to react if there are some things that come up with the analysis on these six cohorts.

I also think, that's the best move.
I don't recall (but I can double check) if we explicitly wrote in the analytical plan, that we were going to use easyQC.£
If not, probably worth updating both the file type and adding the tool "we" use.

Re pull request I am sorry I am really useless with git(hub) and afraid of touching anything! I have been meaning to learn some basics with this project but haven't found the time for it. It is still high in my list I know it would help with other work as well but meanwhile I am sorry for making your harder with being like this :)

No worries/pressure. If you feel trying, you are welcome to do that, otherwise, it's fine, I'll make the change this week-end.

from eggla.

Thank you, Mickaël!

from eggla.