Skip to content

[Bioc-devel] Should GenomicFeatures really depend pn RMySQL ? Is it time to migrate to RMariaDB ?

5 messages · Mike Smith, Hervé Pagès, Wolfgang Huber +1 more

#
Thanks Herv?!

This seems to take a long time to propagate. As of now, 
https://bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/html/GenomicFeatures.html 
still shows 1.31.3.

( Btw, there's also an error in the build report which seems to come 
from a rather excessive-looking example in the makeTxDbFromBiomart man 
page - that maybe could better live in a vignette, not least for 
reducing brittleness? )

	Best wishes
		Wolfgang

30.1.18 19:00, Herv? Pag?s scripsit:

  
    
#
The error TxDbFromBiomart looks like it might be related to a biomaRt
change I made recently to submit queries using httr rather than RCurl.
Others have reported something similar (e.g
https://support.bioconductor.org/p/104502/) and I raised the timeout from
10 to 60 seconds.  I guess with the old version it was even longer than
that.

I haven't been able to recreate the problem at my end, I think the time
taken is related as much to the internet connection as to the query, but
I'll take a look at the failing example to see if I can shed any more light
on it.

Mike
On 2 February 2018 at 10:41, Wolfgang Huber <wolfgang.huber at embl.de> wrote:

            

  
  
#
Hi Wolfgang, Mike,

We didn't have a successful build of GenomicFeatures in devel
for many days because of all kinds of problems with the examples
that try to access the Ensembl marts. The latest of which being:

   https://support.bioconductor.org/p/105565/

(which also affects GenomicFeatures in release).

Thanks Mike for looking at the timeout issue (FWIW I can reproduce
it). I thought this timeout was a new setting on the Ensembl mart
server side :-)

In GenomicFeatures 1.31.7 I replaced RMySQL with RMariaDB:

 
https://github.com/Bioconductor/GenomicFeatures/commit/08dd24296d94ef31b5f5685240b871c79a160e91

I also made another small speed improvement to makeTxDbFromUCSC().

H.
On 02/02/2018 02:33 AM, Mike Smith wrote:

  
    
#
Thanks Mike and Herv?!

Somehow, errors in examples that are caused by the state (or absence) of 
things on the internet should have a different status in my view than 
ones that reflect local state of R and packages - and distinguishing 
this could make maintenance of the package corpus & builds more modular.

But I'm not entirely confident whether this view is coherent or 
practicable, what do others think?

  	Wolfgang

2.2.18 12:19, Herv? Pag?s scripsit:

  
    
#
It is important but not completely clear how to address.

I think it has been written that bioc package checking should make minimal
use of the internet, and most
checking concerning manipulation of net-derived objects should use "mocks".

One possible approach is to test with calls to the external service that
are minimally sufficient to assess
whether key expectations are met.  If not, fail or warn with detailed
indication.  All other tests are devised to
use stored objects that represent service products.   These products are
presumed valid on the basis
of the tests of expectations.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Wolfgang Huber <wolfgang.huber at embl.de>
wrote: