BGE chironomid data

🤖 - Hi! This is an automated message from the barcode validation robot. I'm going to validate the FASTA files in your request. Please wait while I process the files. This takes about two minutes per sequence.

Validation Results

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1133-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1133-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 417

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1136-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1136-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1005

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 2
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1147-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1147-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 60

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1150-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1150-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1131

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 2
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1153-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1153-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 339

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1164-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1164-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 303

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1167-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1167-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 96

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1226-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1226-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 111

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1228-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1228-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 822

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 9
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1229-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1229-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 516

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1232-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1232-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1224

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 2
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1234-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1234-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 36

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1238-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1238-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 657

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1240-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1240-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1101

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 2
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1242-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1242-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 189

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1244-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1244-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 276

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1246-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1246-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 288

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1251-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1251-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 81

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1259-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1259-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1497

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 4
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 4
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1269-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1269-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 804

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 8
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1271-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1271-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 48

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1272-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1272-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 54

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1274-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1274-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 477

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1275-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1275-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 288

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1277-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1277-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1344

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 5
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 4
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1280-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1280-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 639

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 17
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1282-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1282-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 72

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1283-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1283-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 219

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1284-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1284-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 612

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1285-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1285-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 171

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1286-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1286-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 30

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1292-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1292-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 549

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1298-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1298-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 33

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1299-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1299-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 36

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1305-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1305-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 159

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1307-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1307-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 309

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1312-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1312-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 222

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1314-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1314-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 144

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1315-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1315-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 411

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1321-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1321-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1482

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 2
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 4
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1324-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1324-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 864

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 4
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1325-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1325-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 537

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1326-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1326-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 117

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1327-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1327-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 318

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 2
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1330-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1330-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 291

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1335-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1335-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 39

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1336-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1336-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 228

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 3
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1338-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1338-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 198

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1339-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1339-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 201

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1342-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1342-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1290

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 2
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1344-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1344-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 483

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1345-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1345-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 882

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1349-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1349-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 174

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1350-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1350-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 87

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1353-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1353-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 120

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1356-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1356-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 39

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1358-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1358-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 141

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1359-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1359-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 162

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1360-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1360-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 279

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1361-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1361-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 528

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1362-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1362-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 105

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1363-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1363-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1305

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 4
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1368-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1368-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1416

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 4
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥈 Good full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1369-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1369-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1530

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 8
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 3
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1372-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1372-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 216

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 5
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥉 Acceptable full length

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1373-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids NOT UPLOADED to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1373-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1530

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 1
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 3
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1138-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1138-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 3
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 3
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length
❗ Some ambiguities in full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1141-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1141-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1145-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1145-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1157-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1157-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1160-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1160-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1161-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1161-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1162-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1162-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1227-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1227-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1235-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1235-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1241-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1241-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1276-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1276-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1289-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1289-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1290-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1290-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1301-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1301-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1320-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1320-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1322-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1322-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1530

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1323-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1323-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1530

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1329-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1329-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1331-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1331-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1332-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1332-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1333-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1333-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1334-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1334-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1340-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1340-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1341-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1341-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1343-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1343-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 36
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1346-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1346-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1347-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1347-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1348-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1348-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1351-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1351-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1530

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 33
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1352-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1352-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1524

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 69
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1354-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1354-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1524

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 90
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1355-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1355-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1357-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1357-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1364-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1364-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1365-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1365-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1518

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 258
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1366-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1366-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1367-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1367-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 15
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1370-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1370-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 0
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 1
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
🥇 Excellent full length, no ambiguities

 ❗ Process ID: BSNHM1371-24

File: data/2024-08-26 BGE chironomids uploaded to BOLD.fasta

⛔BSNHM1371-24 not in BOLD

❗ Taxonomic check

Expected species as registered at BOLD: None
Expected family as registered at BOLD: None
Observed BLAST hits at family level:

❗ Sequence length

Net length aligned to marker region: None
Full sequence length: 1533

❗ Sequence quality

Ambiguities in marker region: None
Ambiguities in full sequence: 117
Stop codons: 0

Rankings:

Barcode rank: 8
Full rank: 6
Messages:
⛔ Unacceptable marker sequence
⛔ Unacceptable full sequence

🤖 - Validation complete. If all looks good, notify @rvosa to merge this PR.


Script for setting up a Terraform configuration with AWS

This is a shell script that builds a terraform configuration to stand up a Deis cluster.  At present, it only supports the Terraform AWS provider.
The script itself is interactive and guides the user through various configuration settings and deis infrastructure configuration setups (private cluster nodes, public cluster nodes, etc).

I don't have a review, but I just wanted to chime in to say: thanks for working on this! For me this is a) a very helpful tool when I next go to provision a deis cluster, b) awesome programatic documentation for what a deis topology looks like in a very succinct format.
Thanks :sparkles: :cake: :sparkles:

@econnell One thing that jumps out to me is that this seems to only provision nodes in a single AZ, is there a reason not to support multi-AZ deployments?
(Also, as a more general question, does this create a deis deployment that is "production ready"?)

@alex etcd currently does not support multi-AZ deployments. While it's possible to deploy etcd externally from Deis, by default the provisioning scripts should give a good "Out of the Box" experience for newer users coming to the platform, so we have to stick with that limitation.

Sorry! I'm getting DC and AZ mixed up again. :)
After reading through the AWS cloudformation template, we do support multi-AZ deployments over there, so I don't see a reason why we wouldn't be able to here!

Cheers! Ok, thanks for validating that assumption.

@alex the problem with multi-AZ is that if connectivity drops between the AZs for any reason, you can easily end up with a split brain problem that can be very difficult to resolve.
That is obviously an extremely rare case, but etcd doesn't handle that situation very well.  A lot of thought about infrastructure needs to happen before you go multi-AZ, and it still probably should require 3 AZs/regions (with 1 acting as a simple arbiter even).
It's an extremely complex problem and I'm personally hesitant to recommend that situation because it grants a false sense of security.
Also, there's still the issue of backend data storage and which AZ that's in, how to route the DB requests to the appropriate DB, etc.
Multi-AZ is extremely complicated and I think that should be beyond the scope of this.
I meant this more of a way to build a basic Terraform config that can get users started and to use as a reference, not as something that should be used to build an end-state robust production platform.

I haven't gotten into this in great depth yet, but I'd like to say that the existing AWS provisioning process can create a VPC with two subnets-- each in a different availability zone.  It would be bad to lose that ability.

Multi-AZ is extremely complicated and I think that should be beyond the scope of this.

Multi-region is complicated.  I do think that should be beyond the scope, but multi-AZ is an absolute necessity for anyone wishing to guarantee the availability of the platform and the apps deployed to the platform.

the problem with multi-AZ is that if connectivity drops between the AZs for any reason, you can easily end up with a split brain problem that can be very difficult to resolve

This can also happen within a single AZ if nodes are unable to talk to one another for any reason, so it might not be impetus not to do multi-AZ.

and it still probably should require 3 AZs

Yes.  At least three are required if you want to guarantee that an AZ-wide problem in an AZ hosting the majority of your nodes doesn't force you to lose quorum.  By having at least three AZs, you can avoid any one having a majority of your nodes.

Also, there's still the issue of backend data storage and which AZ that's in, how to route the DB requests to the appropriate DB, etc.

This isn't a problem for those running the "stateless platform" (ceph-less), and opting to use RDS or similar for storage.  This seems to be an increasingly common choice among those concerned about minimizing the platform's own moving parts and maximizing availability.

Multi-region is complicated. I do think that should be beyond the scope, but multi-AZ is an absolute necessity for anyone wishing to guarantee the availability of the platform and the apps deployed to the platform.

It wouldn't be hard to implement at all, but I'd rather see that as a future issue since I don't think that it is critical.  I do, however, disagree that this guarantees availability.  It does improve availability though (with the previously mentioned caveats).

  Keep in mind, multi-AZ is already available with the existing provisioning scripts.  It would be bad to lose that.

 Keep in mind, multi-AZ is already available with the existing provisioning scripts. It would be bad to lose that.

:+1:

Sounds good.  I'll get the multi-AZ stuff in there ASAP.

@econnell why in the script does it say "1. paravirtual (recommended)".  HVM is normally considered recommended.

why in the script does it say "1. paravirtual (recommended)".

We had users report deadlocks and kernel panics when using HVM instances, although we should give that another go to see if it's still an issue.

@carmstrong we currently use hvm for all of our AMIs except for the Deis cluster.  Our CoreOS cluster has been running kubernetes on HVM amis for a few months now.

we currently use hvm for all of our AMIs except for the Deis cluster.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I know HVM is generally stable. We suspect the deadlocks/panics were an interaction of the CephFS client driver and the CoreOS kernel, and potentially exacerbated by clock drift. If you're not running Deis on those hosts, you probably wouldn't have seen what we saw.

We use STS temporary access keys for our AWS API access.  This gives us a AWS_SESSION_TOKEN which I believe is only supported via terraform when you specify everything as environment variables.  Instead of having aws_access_key and aws_secret_key specified in the terraform file.  Can we have users set the AWS Environment variables.  These tokens also expire after a set amount of time.
https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/aws/

we currently use hvm for all of our AMIs except for the Deis cluster.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I know HVM is generally stable. We suspect the deadlocks/panics were an interaction of the CephFS client driver and the CoreOS kernel, and potentially exacerbated by clock drift. If you're not running Deis on those hosts, you probably wouldn't have seen what we saw.

To further clarify, would HVM be preferred when running Deis without Ceph then?

@jgmize If the problem was with Ceph than we should certainly prefer HVM without Ceph.  HVM is more performant than PV.  http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/virtualization_types.html

To further clarify, would HVM be preferred when running Deis without Ceph then?

Generally, yes. With the caveat that the original issue was mainly anecdotes that we've heard from our users (@ianblenke and @mgartner, from memory) - see #2959

ASG needs the block data to move to the launch_config
https://gist.github.com/sstarcher/248b7c80b5b2928fe796

When choosing existing VPC in the current state the terraform files will create a new VPC.  I did the following to modify the files to allow it to work with my existing vpc/subnet
*Note the sed syntax is for OSX delete the space between -i and '' for gnu bash
SUBNET='subnet-xxxxxxx'
VPC='vpc-xxxxxx'
echo "aws_subnet_deis_public_id = \"$SUBNET\"" >> config.tfvars
echo "aws_vpc_deis_id = \"$VPC\"" >> config.tfvars

echo 'variable "aws_vpc_deis_id" {}' >> variable.tf
echo 'variable "aws_subnet_deis_public_id" {}' >> variable.tf

sed -i '' s/aws_vpc.deis.id/var.aws_vpc_deis_id/g *.tf
sed -i '' s/aws_subnet.deis_public.id/var.aws_subnet_deis_public_id/g *.tf
rm vpc.tf

Closing this in favor of #4315 and rigger.
:v: @econnell

We'll probably still use this, but it'll be wrapped in rigger's swaddling clothes. Don't get rid of it! :smile: I appreciate all the work that has gone into this, @econnell.


Dom Exception when using keyboard to remove first tag

I'm submitting a ...  (check one with "x")
[X] bug report => search github for a similar issue or PR before submitting
[ ] feature request
[ ] support request/question

Current behavior
I am using angular material2 beta 3 library. I have a sidebar widget in which I am using the ng2-tag-input component.

Select the first suggestion.
Then press backspace 2 times. 1st time to select the chip, 2nd time to remove the chip.

I get an error
core.es5.js:1084 ERROR DOMException: Failed to execute 'animate' on 'Element': Partial keyframes are not supported.
    at WebAnimationsPlayer._triggerWebAnimation (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:103429:35)
    at WebAnimationsPlayer.init (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:103412:29)
    at InjectableAnimationEngine.DomAnimationEngine._queuePlayer (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:102703:16)
    at InjectableAnimationEngine.DomAnimationEngine.animateTransition (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:102618:14)
    at InjectableAnimationEngine.DomAnimationEngine.setProperty (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:102489:18)
    at AnimationRenderer.setProperty (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:90507:26)
    at setElementProperty (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:9893:19)
    at checkAndUpdateElementValue (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:9812:13)
    at checkAndUpdateElementInline (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:9752:24)
    at checkAndUpdateNodeInline (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:12439:23)
    at checkAndUpdateNode (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:12414:16)
    at prodCheckAndUpdateNode (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:12867:5)
    at Object.eval [as updateRenderer] (ng:///Ng2DropdownModule/Ng2DropdownMenu.ngfactory.js:300:5)
    at Object.updateRenderer (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:12784:70)
    at checkAndUpdateView (http://localhost:5000/dist/vendor.js:12386:14)

I am using angular 4. I am using the chrome browser.

Are there any custom styles applied?

The tag-input component is sitting inside the md-sidenav component. There are no custom styles applied to the tag-input component.

Also note, that this issue only happens when a chip is removed via backspace. If I use the mouse, everything works great.

@vadim82 does it also happen if the tag-input is not inside md-sidenav? If it doesn't, I am not sure if the issue is in this component.

Fair point. I tried using this component inside an angular-material2 md-card component and had the same issues. So it seems like the 2 libraries do not play nice together. Something to do with the animate library. Its possible that it is an angular material issue, but I am only seeing this error in the ng2-tag-input component, not in any other ones. So I was just wondering if maybe there is some animation being triggered that is causing this error.

That error usually occurs when the animated component doesn't have a size pre-defined. I struggle to understand though why this would happen :(

Is there some kind of flag we can set to disable animations? At least that would allow us to continue using this library.

@vadim82 I haven't found none that would allow me to optionally include animations. I'd suggest you to fork and remove the animations, or maybe extend the component and override the animations

Having exact same issue. Tag-input is not inside an angular material component


Github action to deploy to Container Instance

It's not possible for me to get credentials. Closing for now. May revive later.
Guide used: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/container-instances/container-instances-github-action?tabs=userlevel


fix(date-time-picker): flatpickr 4.6.9 fix

Closes #2868
Summary

Fixes the input focusing events so that versions of flatpickr newer than 4.6.1 can be used.

Change List (commits, features, bugs, etc)

changed focus() events to click() events to properly set focus on "from" input or "to" inputs
updated tests to confirm this behavior

Acceptance Test (how to verify the PR)

You can change the selected range in the preselected absolute range story

Regression Test (how to make sure this PR doesn't break old functionality)

keyboard navigation still works
tests pass
DateTimePicker works as expected in other stories

Things to look for during review

[ ] Make sure all references to iot or bx class prefix is using the prefix variable
[ ] (React) All major areas have a data-testid attribute. New test ids should have test written to ensure they are not changed or removed.
[ ] UI should be checked in RTL mode to ensure the proper handling of layout and text.
[ ] All strings should be translatable.
[ ] The code should pass a11y scans (The storybook a11y knob should show no violations). New components should have a11y test written.
[ ] Unit test should be written and should have a coverage of 90% or higher in all areas.
[ ] All components should be passing visual regression test. For new styles or components either a visual regression test should be written for all permutations or the base image updated.
[ ] Changes or new components should either write new or update existing documentation.
[ ] PR should link and close out an existing issue

@davidicus I opened this against next, but it probably warrants being opened against master to make it into 8.6. Do you agree?

@davidicus Can you re-trigger netlify on this one, please?

@kevinsperrine Is there an estimate by when can this PR be merged? It is a high priority for MAS 8.6

@kevinsperrine Is there an estimate by when can this PR be merged? It is a high priority for MAS 8.6

@navjeets I'm going to close this out and re-open it against master, so that it makes it into DCUT. 2.146.0 is the latest release that we cut off, so you can pull it in as a patch version there. We'll get it in ASAP.


DataGrid

How to realize grouping display of dataggrid, as shown in the figure

Did you check out the Controlgallery's datagridPage. There is a datgrid with grouping, not as complex as the example in your question, but it might be worth checking out.
Regards,
Remco

s there an open source implementation?

@jinyuttt there is DataGridTemplateColumn type that you can use to merge cells into one.
Here is example from WPF, but similar code should work in Avalonia too.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17202389/merge-cells-in-wpf-datagrid

I believe this issue is answered. Feel free to reopen if you have another related questions.


These instructions don't work

When entering the copy-and-pasted KQL into the alert and running it the following error message is displayed.
'project' operator: Failed to resolve table or column expression named 'SigninLogs'
If issue persists, please open a support ticket. Request id: 4cd1b585-56ec-4ba8-a716-5949d59d1979

Document Details
⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

ID: fff5de5d-9a97-73ff-4694-79027720b5c3
Version Independent ID: 566a8387-bbdd-8e35-13cc-f2d891bd5608
Content: Manage emergency access admin accounts - Azure AD
Content Source: articles/active-directory/roles/security-emergency-access.md
Service: active-directory
Sub-service: roles
GitHub Login: @markwahl-msft
Microsoft Alias: rolyon

@lkchild
Thanks for your feedback! We will investigate and update as appropriate.

@lkchild
Thank you for your time and patience!
Prior to running the KQL example queries, can you make sure you followed the prerequisite of Integrating Azure AD logs with Azure Monitor logs.

Since I wasn't able to reproduce your issue, and because this issue isn't directly related to improving our docs, I'd recommend leveraging our Q&A forum by posting your issue there so our community, and MVPs can further assist you in troubleshooting this issue or finding potential workarounds.
Thank you again for your time and patience throughout this issue.

Hi James,
For what it's worth I had done that and was able to get this going through a normal log search and then "create alert rule" from that, albeit with a different error message.  It needs the microsoft.insights resource provider to be added to the subscription.  Not sure if that caused the error doing it as described, but it could be another thing to add to the instructions.
This link helped - https://mostafaelmasry.com/2020/04/19/the-subscription-is-not-registered-to-microsoft-insights-resource-provider/

@lkchild
Thank you for pointing this out! I've created a PR to update the documentation and it's currently waiting for the author to review and sign off.
I will now close out this issue. Please allow some time for the author to review and the changes to reflect.
Thank you for your time and patience!

thanks James :)


Integrate all components to use places in our Gazetteer.

We have expended considerable effort in developing our own Gazetteer which is a high quality set of place names and their location. (georeferenced). It has almost 50,000 entries.
CSVProc uses this for establishing locations.
VLD entries currently use a small low quality place collection that in many cases are not georeferenced.
It is proposed to convert Vld and all searches to use the Gazetteer. This will enable us to reactivate the Nearby search feature.
This is an umbrella story

Looking at the Nearby search feature

The places in the search are shown in the About this Query

What is clear is that some place in the gazetteer still have incorrect places; BUT remember this is the TEST environment and no corrections have been made to it.

@geoffj-FUG @rhodamackenzie @PatReynolds @DeniseColbert @FreecenBren
There have also been some additions to the displays for Coordinators

The VLD upload and CSVProc are both modified to interface with this Integrated system.
Testing should be focused on the preceding capabilities as well as confirmation the uploads work as expected.. The detailed stories should be closed and new stories written to address problems found with its implementation.

Thank you Kirk, this is very impressive and represents a lot of mental and physical work.

Thanks, Kirk!  I think there may be some erroneous geolocations in the gazattteer that have been revealed by this wor.

result included 10 people from Lancashire censuses (born Lancashire).  North and South Bury seem to be incorrectly geolocated (Google maps suggests that they are 154miles from Hardingstone - these distances are longer than straight line).
One from King's Lynn North (Google suggests 78 miles). North Damerham (Wiltshire) (37.7 miles) was also searched (Google says 123 miles).
The other places searched suggests the issue is not with Hardingstone.

Yes that is correct @PatReynolds but that is not an error in the software but an incorrect entry in the Gazetteer that is revealed by the software.

Processing completed; took 10 days in total.
Rebuilding Freecen2 Place Cache

Completed and deployed

Thank you, @Captainkirkdawson ! So closing.


feat: support non streamable arrow file binary format

Support Arrow files (.arrow) that are in non streamable binary file formats.

requesting review - @albertvillanova @lhoestq

The docs for this PR live here. All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update.

Thank you for the review.

Before we merge could you also add a test in tests/packaged_modules/test_arrow.py ?

I noticed it's pretty empty right now compared to test_json.py or test_csv.py though, maybe I can take care of it next week if needed

@lhoestq Would you like to take that up? since it needs adding some test data and I see no supportive examples for simple data formats - parquet pandas etc. Thanks

@lhoestq rebased the PR, if there is anything pending on this PR, It would be really helpful to have this feature into datasets, please let me know thanks.

@lhoestq
Have added the unit test to generate tables for both the arrow formats - file and streaming.
Let me know if we have any docs changes as well. Thanks

@lhoestq any update on this thread? Thanks

Timely PR!
Can we please look into this?


修改标题顺序

@pengweiqhca please check your email account (***@ sina.com), there should be an invitation mail.


Documentation/advice on differences of direct vs codspeed runner test execution

In https://github.com/datalad/datalad-next/pull/644 I have added benchmarks and a codspeed Github action. Benchmarks run fine locally and in the action via python -m pytest --codspeed datalad_next (see "Debug" step).
However, when executed within CodSpeedHQ/action@v2 the execution fails, because a required command is not found. This is independent of whether that command is installed via the method in the PR, or as an Ubuntu system package.
Can you advice on what to do in this case? Are there additional requirements to be met for compatibility with the codspeed runner?
Thanks in advance!

Since the action runs the provided run command under valgrind and some other stuff, it might be because under this new environment git-annex is not available.
You can enable the step debug logging to have more ingo about the command that was run under the action, which will help investigate.

Thanks for the pointer. This now makes clear what is being executed. I am posting the example of my usecase below (slightly formatted for better readability).
ARCH="x86_64"
CODSPEED_ENV="runner"
PATH="/tmp/codspeed_introspected_node:
  /opt/hostedtoolcache/Python/3.12.2/x64/bin:
  /opt/hostedtoolcache/Python/3.12.2/x64:
  /tmp/dl-build-4f3gnv48/git-annex.linux:
  /opt/hostedtoolcache/Python/3.12.2/x64/bin:
  /opt/hostedtoolcache/Python/3.12.2/x64:
  /snap/bin:/home/runner/.local/bin:
  /opt/pipx_bin:
  /home/runner/.cargo/bin:
  /home/runner/.config/composer/vendor/bin:
  /usr/local/.ghcup/bin:
  /home/runner/.dotnet/tools:
  /usr/local/sbin:
  /usr/local/bin:
  /usr/sbin:
  /usr/bin:
  /sbin:
  /bin:
  /usr/games:
  /usr/local/games:
  /snap/bin"
PYTHONHASHSEED="0"
PYTHONMALLOC="malloc"
"setarch" "x86_64" "-R"
  "valgrind" "-q"
    "--tool=callgrind"
    "--trace-children=yes"
    "--cache-sim=yes"
    "--I1=32768,8,64" "--D1=32768,8,64" "--LL=8388608,16,64"
    "--instr-atstart=no"
    "--collect-systime=nsec"
    "--compress-strings=no"
    "--combine-dumps=yes"
    "--dump-line=no"
    "--trace-children-skip=*esbuild"
    "--obj-skip=/opt/hostedtoolcache/Python/3.12.2/x64/lib/libpython3.12.so.1.0"
    "--obj-skip=/usr/local/bin/node"
    "--callgrind-out-file

This indicates that the PATH is properly propagated.
I tried reproducing the behavior locally with this valgrind call pattern. On the test system (Debian sid), git-annex is installed as an official system package, with no PATH manipulation necessary:
❯ apt-cache policy git-annex
git-annex:
  Installed: 10.20230802-1
  Candidate: 10.20230802-1
  Version table:
 *** 10.20230802-1 500
        500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
❯ ldd /usr/bin/git-annex
        linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd309bf000)
        libyaml-0.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libyaml-0.so.2 (0x00007f35c97c5000)
        libsqlite3.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsqlite3.so.0 (0x00007f35c9655000)
        libmagic.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmagic.so.1 (0x00007f35c9629000)
        libz.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1 (0x00007f35c960a000)
        libgmp.so.10 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgmp.so.10 (0x00007f35c9586000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f35c93a2000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x00007f35c92c3000)
        libffi.so.8 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libffi.so.8 (0x00007f35c92b6000)
        liblzma.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5 (0x00007f35c9286000)
        libbz2.so.1.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbz2.so.1.0 (0x00007f35c9273000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f35c9808000)

The benchmarks run fine with --trace-children=no. Here is the full command:
valgrind -q --tool=callgrind --trace-children=no --cache-sim=yes "--I1=32768,8,64" "--D1=32768,8,64" "--LL=8388608,16,64" --instr-atstart=no --collect-systime=nsec --compress-strings=no --combine-dumps=yes --dump-line=no "--trace-children-skip=*esbuild" python -m pytest --codspeed datalad_next
...
=============================== 2 passed, 391 deselected, 12 warnings in 15.64s ===============================
valgrind -q --tool=callgrind --trace-children=no --cache-sim=yes           -m  10,21s user 9,18s system 100% cpu 19,367 total

Switching to --trace-children=yes (while leaving everything else constant) causes the tests to fail.
valgrind -q --tool=callgrind --trace-children=yes --cache-sim=yes "--I1=32768,8,64" "--D1=32768,8,64" "--LL=8388608,16,64" --instr-atstart=no --collect-systime=nsec --compress-strings=no --combine-dumps=yes --dump-line=no "--trace-children-skip=*esbuild" python -m pytest --codspeed datalad_next
...
=========================================== short test summary info ===========================================
ERROR datalad_next/iter_collections/tests/test_itergitstatus.py::test_status_smrec - datalad.support.exceptions.IncompleteResultsError: Command did not complete successfully. 36 failed:
ERROR datalad_next/iter_collections/tests/test_itergitstatus.py::test_status_monorec - datalad.support.exceptions.IncompleteResultsError: Command did not complete successfully. 36 failed:
========================= 391 deselected, 12 warnings, 2 errors in 364.92s (0:06:04) ==========================
valgrind -q --tool=callgrind --trace-children=yes --cache-sim=yes           -  362,93s user 32,89s system 105% cpu 6:14,51 total

Importantly, the failure pattern is different locally from what is happening in the github action CI run. It looks like some kind of race condition.
These particular benchmarks call out to various Git and git-annex command line tools. It seems that the valgrind wrapping  of such subprocesses causes significant changes in their behavior.
That being said: from a benchmarking perspective, I am not interested in what these external tools do exactly. I am only interested in the performance of the Python code that calls out to them. Would it be sensible to turn off the subprocess tracing? And if so, is this somehow possible from the outside?


Assignment details page + reusable button component

Checklist

[ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
[ ] I have reached out to another developer to review my code
[ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
[ ] All Lint and CI checks are passing

@kennybc lint check failing


Hide .password file

There's any way to hide .password file? because I want to share my folder but if person access the folder and put the password, the file can be viewed/downloaded.
Other thing: there's anyway I can protect the folder but not folders inside?

Here https://github.com/iRedScarf/onedrive-index/pull/18

in my changes i made mistake on file name so replace this .password.png to this .password


Investigate the effect of k on the estimation

We should consider different k values (possibly just 10 and 100) for all three measures
Reviewer 1:

It would be interesting to see the effect of varying the size of k on the presented results. As far as I have understood, the authors used k=100 in the experiments (see my previous comment 2), but k=10 for EXP and RC: does this make any differences? Clearly, this could be taken as a suggestion for future investigation, since the paper is already packed with experiments.

Also, reviewer 3:

The practical issues surrounding LID estimation were not fully taken into account. LID estimation depends strongly on the neighborhood size K - typically, K needs to be of size 100 for the estimation to stabilize. However, as was pointed out by the authors themselves, LID estimation was performed with K=100, Expansion estimation with K=10, and Relative Contrast with K=10, while the queries themselves were performed for query result size k=100. The authors should consider the effects of varying K and k.


fix: page view count miss match

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license
Summary
(describe what this merge request does)
Implementation highlights
(describe how the merge request does for feature changes, share the RFC link if it has)
Test checklist

[ ] add new test cases
[ ] all code changes are covered by unit tests
[ ] end-to-end tests

[ ] deploy web console with CloudFront + S3 + API gateway
[ ] deploy web console within VPC
[ ] deploy ingestion server

[ ] with MSK sink
[ ] with KDS sink
[ ] with S3 sink

[ ] deploy data processing
[ ] deploy data modeling

[ ] new Redshift Serverless
[ ] provisioned Redshift
[ ] Athena

[ ] deploy with reporting
[ ] streaming ingestion

[ ] with Redshift Serverless
[ ] with provisioned Redshift

Is it a breaking change

[ ] add parameters without default value in stack
[ ] introduce new service permission in stack
[ ] introduce new top level stack module

Miscellaneous

[ ] introduce new symbol link source file(s) to be shared among infra code, web console frontend, and web console backend

SonarQube Quality Gate Result

Result: :exclamation: Error
Triggered by @llmin on pull_request

Metric
Status
Value
Error Threshold

Reliability rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Security rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Sqale rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Coverage
:white_check_mark: OK
83.60
< 80

Duplicated lines density
:white_check_mark: OK
5.20
> 30

Blocker violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Bugs
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Code smells
:white_check_mark: OK
27
> 40

Critical violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Major violations
:exclamation: Error
19
> 0

Vulnerabilities
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

View on SonarQube
updated: 5/17/2024, 08:03:36 (UTC+0)

SonarQube Code Analytics
Quality Gate failed

Additional information
The following metrics might not affect the Quality Gate status but improving them will improve your project code quality.
Issues
 0 Bugs
 0 Vulnerabilities
 0 Code Smells
Coverage and Duplications
No data Coverage
No data Duplication

SonarQube Quality Gate Result

Result: :exclamation: Error
Triggered by @llmin on pull_request

Metric
Status
Value
Error Threshold

Reliability rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Security rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Sqale rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Coverage
:white_check_mark: OK
83.60
< 80

Duplicated lines density
:white_check_mark: OK
5.20
> 30

Blocker violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Bugs
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Code smells
:white_check_mark: OK
27
> 40

Critical violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Major violations
:exclamation: Error
19
> 0

Vulnerabilities
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

View on SonarQube
updated: 5/17/2024, 08:05:12 (UTC+0)

SonarQube Quality Gate Result

Result: :white_check_mark: OK
Triggered by @llmin on pull_request

Metric
Status
Value
Error Threshold

Reliability rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Security rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Sqale rating
:white_check_mark: OK
1
> 1

Coverage
:white_check_mark: OK
83.60
< 80

Duplicated lines density
:white_check_mark: OK
5.20
> 30

Blocker violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Bugs
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Code smells
:white_check_mark: OK
8
> 40

Critical violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Major violations
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

Vulnerabilities
:white_check_mark: OK
0
> 0

View on SonarQube
updated: 5/17/2024, 12:33:40 (UTC+0)


Autocomplete for function definition using a TypeAlias is broken

Environment data

Language Server version: 2024.2.1 (pyright version 1.1.348, commit cfb1de0c)
OS and version: MacOS 14.2.1
Python version (& distribution if applicable, e.g. Anaconda): 3.10.1 (from conda environment)

Code Snippet
Consider this definition:
from typing import TypeAlias

Thing: TypeAlias = list[int]

class Base:

    def the_thing(self) -> Thing:
        return []

Repro Steps

Start adding a subclass:

class Child(Base):

    def the_thi

Then, type 'n'.
Note that the floating window shows that the return type is Thing.
Hit Tab for autocomplete.
Autocomplete expands the TypeAlias to list[int] instead of Thing.

Expected behavior
Expected output:
class Child(Base):

    def the_thing(self) -> Thing:
        return super().the_thing()

Actual behavior
class Child(Base):

    def the_thing(self) -> list[int]:
        return super().the_thing()

Logs
Could not create the issue with the logs; they were too long although I cleared the log output, enabled the trace setting, pressed n and tab and copied the resulting logs. Not sure what part I'll have to paste from the logs...

Thanks to @davep for coming up with the MRE code.

Thank you for reporting this issue. Our current design is to print the original return type instead of the type alias for overridden methods. I don't consider it a bug, but tagging @heejaechang  to see if he has a different perspective.

Thanks, @StellaHuang95! Is there a rationale for this? The tooltip that appears when you are in the process of overriding a method does show the type alias. When you subclass something, you're probably not interested in returning the original type, but in the type alias. You may not even know or understand what the original type is.

Ran into this problem a few more times while creating subclasses. Whenever I override __init__(), tab completion gives me an elaborate method definition which is unwanted. I get this:
def __init__(
        self,
        *content: Option | Separator | None | ConsoleRenderable | RichCast | str,
        tooltip: ConsoleRenderable | RichCast | str | None = None,
    ):

while this is the original class definition:
    def __init__(
        self,
        *content: NewOptionListContent,
        tooltip: RenderableType | None = None,
    ):

(I removed some other parameters which were simple types and thus unchanged.) Since I just want to subclass something, I don't want the type definition to change. That confuses my users...

Thanks for the clarification. We could potentially add a setting to control the printed return type to be either original type or type alias. Moving this issue to discussion as an enhancement request for comments and upvotes.


Change Email from Profile page

This PR introduces the ability to change your email from the profile page.
There are a couple quirks that the Matrix API forces us to deal with:

the matrix API requires us to provide the user's password for additional security when changing a user's email address
the matrix API always sends the verification email first before verifying that the password provided is actually correct

The initial state of the settings screen should not show the New email field. It should be like this: https://app.zeplin.io/project/652ea0fee5ade422add72a63/screen/652ea4648d18982039bee37d

ah, i see. i never saw that screen in the linear ticket

@lukemelia I've updated the flow to look like this now:


Add avatar and about me fields to the sign up form

Add two new fields to the registration form: avatar and bio
Uploading of the avatars is not a requirement, so in the initial implementation we will pre-define them. They will be served by the frontend. We will have 10 different avatars with filenames 0.jpg, 1.jpg ... 9.jpg
Backend
Both new fields are optional strings. To store them in the database a new migration should be implemented. This change is very similar to adding new signup fields in #14. The type of new fields in models will be sql.NullString.
Backend should check if avatar exists during sign up (matches 0..9.jpg).
bio should have the same length limit as the post descriptions.
This fields should be added to /api/me response to be able to see them on the profile page.
Both avatar and bio fields are public and should be added to the /api/users/{id} response.
The tests should be updated to keep the coverage high.
Frontend
Frontend will serve avatars, they will be stored as files in the public directory.
The design of choosing avatars will look something like this:

During the sign up user can choose one of the avatars and add it as a name (e.g. 0.jpg) to the signup request. About me field is like a post description.
The bio should be shown on /me and /user/{id}. Avatar component should be updated.

Frontend logic is done, I've just pushed it to the linked branch features/93-add-avatar-and-bio and tested it with dummy data.
Design will be improved by @nattikim later. Temporary kittens also are going to be replaced. But the new fields are here:
https://github.com/merpw/forum/assets/43277901/68e13782-d5b2-46ad-9929-c804b54ae2bf
I've also added About me to user profiles (/me and /user/{id}). Now the forum is much more colorful! I also think it would be great to assign random avatars to the users during the migration.

Hey @FinnTune @bomanviktor. Any updates on the backend?

I believe I've added everything, but I'm not sure how to add the tests.
Never done it before.

One more thing. username should be optional in the social-network
I've updated the frontend in 5a871d7d253b130d45315e8bf74303b6ef4a7227, so now it looks like this:

If the username is not specified, an automatic u123456 should be used on the backend (where 123456 is user id). I think u123456  format is good choice because we already have u123456 in chats (/chat/u123456)
We should also restrict providing u123456 as a username to prevent cases when the username was already taken by someone else.

Backend logic should be done. I added tests to go with it so that the coverage stays the same.

The avatar is visible only to the owner

The avatar is visible only to the owner

Good catch, fea062c1e472e8cfd8210a0230644b4356e01c7a fixes this

Would be cool to make the avatars layout like so ↓

It'll save some space and it will look much neater ✨
Also, would be nice if it'll be something like closed circle, when last pic followed by first pic 🔄

Please welcome our new avatars

My original idea, when we just started with the forum, was to have a hacker cat as a "mascot".. I also added some other animals here for variety but the theme stays the same.. hacker cat/other animal and cyber style 🧑💻

I love them)

Would be cool to make the avatars layout like so ↓

Implementation of this layout looks quite complicated to me. There's no native way to implement infinite scroll loop in HTML. The only way to do this is to manually remove some elements from the beginning and add them to the end. But it's not compatible with css scroll snap, so it's not stable for our case.
As it's not a requirement I think it's better to concentrate on the mandatory features and implement design improvements if we have some time later.
Avatar looks great to me, so you can push them so we can merge #98

I agree with Max, just make sure the avatars are centered! Looked kinda wonky before with the cat avatars.