Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Error when setting batch size with sage and lfq export #373

Open
s-imonb opened this issue Aug 16, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Error when setting batch size with sage and lfq export #373

s-imonb opened this issue Aug 16, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@s-imonb
Copy link

s-imonb commented Aug 16, 2024

Hello,

When running searchgui (4.3.9) with sage and the batch size in the sage settings set I get an error in the formatting of the input string. With the batch size field empty it runs, but one file at a time.

Here’s the command from the searchgui log:
C:\SearchGUI-4.1.0-windows\SearchGUI-4.3.9\resources\Sage\windows\sage.exe -o C:\SearchGUI-4.1.0-windows\SearchGUI-4.3.9\resources\temp\search_engines\sage -batch-size16 --disable-telemetry-i-dont-want-to-improve-sage C:\SearchGUI-4.1.0-windows\SearchGUI-4.3.9\resources\temp\search_engines\sage\sage.json

and here’s the error:
error: unexpected argument '-b' found
 
  tip: to pass '-b' as a value, use '-- -b'
 
Usage: sage.exe [OPTIONS] [mzml_paths]...
 
For more information, try '--help'.

Second, does peptide shaker save the lfq and other output files from sage? I can see the files generated in temp/search engines/sage but it’s not practical to grab them as they are generated.

Thanks!
Simon

@hbarsnes hbarsnes self-assigned this Aug 16, 2024
@hbarsnes hbarsnes added the bug label Aug 16, 2024
@hbarsnes
Copy link
Member

Hi Simon,

Thanks for letting us know about the batch size issue! Basically we were using -batch-size and not --batch-size. There was also a missing white space between the option and the value. Both have now been fixed and I will try to find the time to release a new version of SearchGUI next week.

Second, does peptide shaker save the lfq and other output files from sage? I can see the files generated in temp/search engines/sage but it’s not practical to grab them as they are generated.

At the moment, SearchGUI does not keep the lfq or other additional output files from Sage, mainly as the quantification data (at least for LFQ) is also included in the Sage tsv output file. We may look into changing this in the future, but in the meantime it is probably easier to run the Sage command lines directly.

Best regards,
Harald

@s-imonb
Copy link
Author

s-imonb commented Aug 19, 2024 via email

@s-imonb
Copy link
Author

s-imonb commented Aug 19, 2024

here they are.

Sample1.sage.txt
lfq.txt

@hbarsnes
Copy link
Member

hbarsnes commented Sep 4, 2024

SearchGUI v4.3.10 has just been released which solves the problem with the Sage batch size parameter.

I have not had the time to look into the question about keeping the additional Sage output files and will therefore keep the issue open. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to look at this in the near future though.

@s-imonb
Copy link
Author

s-imonb commented Sep 6, 2024 via email

@hbarsnes
Copy link
Member

hbarsnes commented Sep 9, 2024

Hi Simon,

I'm afraid that's how SearchGUI has been implemented, i.e. search one spectrum file at the time. Basically, this was the only option supported by the search engines when we implemented the first version of SearchGUI a long time ago. So while some of the search engines may support multiple files as input it is not the case for all of them.

However, I'm not sure how much the gain would be in practice? It may even be faster to use all the resources on one file at the time? I've never tested this but sounds like something that would very much be up to whether the given search engine was optimized for parallel processing of multiple files or not?

Best regards,
Harald

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants