Newick importer parity - #8
Open
bredelings wants to merge 9 commits into
Open
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Currently the Newick parser fails to handle some things that the NEXUS parser does handle. The main one is Newick comments -- the Newick parser currently does quite weird things when the trees have comments. This makes it hard to use Newick trees in FigTree.
The PR tries to fix some of these by making the Newick importer behave more like the NEXUS importer.
[&U].;This doesn't fix all issues with Newick parsing, just issues that are handled OK when parsing NEXUS. Parsing of tip labels with spaces is still not what I would expect, for example.
Node and branch attributes are treated the same, instead of attaching some on nodes and some on branches. This retains the status quo.
NOTE: The code here was written by Codex. I looked over it, and it looks reasonable, but it might still have some flaws. The design was by me though -- I didn't just tell Codex "fix this" and upload the result. So I think its worth reviewing. Also I tried it and it seems to work. I do hope we can get this included in FigTree -- I really hate treating internal node names as posterior probabilities, and this should mean I don't have to do that.