Skip to content

Use CSI indexes for BAMs instead of BAI indexes.#181

Open
afonsoguerra wants to merge 1 commit intonf-core:devfrom
afonsoguerra:csi-indexes
Open

Use CSI indexes for BAMs instead of BAI indexes.#181
afonsoguerra wants to merge 1 commit intonf-core:devfrom
afonsoguerra:csi-indexes

Conversation

@afonsoguerra
Copy link

While running the dev version of this pipeline I managed to produce a large contig. This produced error:

  [E::hts_idx_check_range] Region 536854800..536872065 cannot be stored in a bai index. Try using a csi index

As such, this PR aims to replace the default bai index with a csi index to avoid this error.

PR checklist

  • This comment contains a description of changes (with reason).
  • Make sure your code lints (nf-core pipelines lint).
  • Ensure the test suite passes (nextflow run . -profile test,docker --outdir <OUTDIR>).
  • CHANGELOG.md is updated. (this is not a full release so I did not update changeling)
  • README.md is updated (including new tool citations and authors/contributors). (not sure this merits any change to the readme either)

@nschan
Copy link
Collaborator

nschan commented Feb 4, 2026

Thank you for opening this PR, I will see how I can best align this with #171 .

@nf-core-bot
Copy link
Member

Warning

Newer version of the nf-core template is available.

Your pipeline is using an old version of the nf-core template: 3.5.1.
Please update your pipeline to the latest version.

For more documentation on how to update your pipeline, please see the nf-core documentation and Synchronisation documentation.

@nschan
Copy link
Collaborator

nschan commented Feb 13, 2026

I think your latest commit is far outside the scope of this PR.
Please open a new PR for these larger changes. While I truly appreciate contributions to this, as mentioned above, the pipeline is currently undergoing a major refactor (#171) and these additions are likely not going to work with the changes I implemented. I am happy to discuss how to align your work with the upcoming changes in a separate PR.

@afonsoguerra
Copy link
Author

Sorry, it was my mistake. I've reverted it now. I am just trying to get this pipeline work for my needs, but once I'm done with it and feel it is stable I will obviously get in touch and let you pick and choose what functionality is useful to a broader user base and will submit PRs then. Keep up the good work with the refactoring!

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.

3 participants