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

Formatting -> Format #74

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 31, 2024
Merged

Formatting -> Format #74

merged 3 commits into from
May 31, 2024

Conversation

timholy
Copy link
Contributor

@timholy timholy commented May 10, 2024

Formatting.jl is now archived.

EDIT: This also adds [compat] bounds on stdlibs, and makes Julia 1.6 the minimum supported version.

Formatting.jl is now archived.

This also adds [compat] bounds on stdlibs.
@timholy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timholy commented May 10, 2024

Test failures expected from #73. Fortunately the PDB tests run before the Pfam tests.

@timholy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timholy commented May 10, 2024

Hmm, looks like we have to drop Julia 1.0 if we're going to do this. I've tentatively made Julia 1.6 the minimum. I've also done a minor bump, since you're supposed to when you drop support for older Julia versions.

@timholy timholy closed this May 30, 2024
@timholy timholy reopened this May 30, 2024
@timholy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timholy commented May 31, 2024

Test failures are because Interpro throttles the number of simultaneous users. There may not be much reason to test unix/windows/mac, perhaps just one would suffice.

@diegozea
Copy link
Owner

Hi @timholy, thank you so much for tackling this; it was on my todo list for a while :)

Yes, making 1.6 the minimum Julia version makes sense, as it is the LTS version. I was trying to keep compatibility with older Julia versions, as the official version in my institute's cluster is 1.5. I think that old Julia versions could also be present in other academic HPC systems. However, developing such old Julia versions becomes complicated as the ecosystem evolves, so let's move on to 1.6 as the minimum.

Yes, testing the download in a single OS makes sense to avoid that problem.

@diegozea diegozea merged commit d01872a into diegozea:master May 31, 2024
5 of 7 checks passed
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ const _Format_PDB_ATOM = FormatExpr(
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
# > <> < > <|> < |> <| > <> <> <> <> < > <><><
"{:<6}{:>5d} {:<4}{:>1}{:>3} {:>1}{:>4}{:>1} {:>8.3f}{:>8.3f}{:>8.3f}{:>6.2f}{:>6.2f} {:<4}{:>2}{:>2}\n"
"{:<6}{:>5d} {:<4}{:>1}{:>3} {:>1}{:>4}{:>1} {:>8.3f}{:>8.3f}{:>8.3f}{:>6.2f}{:>6} {:<4}{:>2}{:>2}\n"
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @timholy ,

Is there a reason to have more than 2 decimal places for the B-factors?

The PDB format description describe this field as:

COLUMNS      DATA TYPE        FIELD      DEFINITION
------------------------------------------------------
61 - 66      Real(6.2)        tempFactor Temperature factor.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@timholy timholy Jun 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh shoot, I don't know why I did that. But in terms of reading a file I guess it shouldn't matter much, since it's what's in the file that matters.

@timholy timholy deleted the teh/format branch June 6, 2024 09:59
@timholy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timholy commented Jun 6, 2024

as the official version in my institute's cluster is 1.5

My condolences 😆

timholy added a commit to timholy/MIToS.jl that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2024
This reverts commit 715a90a.

'1' means "lastest stable release" (currently Julia 1.10), not "1.0".
'1.0' was already removed in diegozea#74.
diegozea pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2024
This reverts commit 715a90a.

'1' means "lastest stable release" (currently Julia 1.10), not "1.0".
'1.0' was already removed in #74.
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.

None yet

2 participants