Issue 784: Improvements to associating raw files with .sky.zip files (for support, Panorama, ???)

issues
Status:open
Assigned To:Brendan MacLean
Type:Defect
Area:Skyline
Priority:3
Milestone: 
Opened:2021-04-02 by Brian Pratt
Changed:2021-04-02 by Brian Pratt
Resolved:
Resolution:
Closed:
2021-04-02 Brian Pratt
Title»Improvements to associating raw files with .sky.zip files (for support, Panorama, ???)
Assigned To»Brendan MacLean
Type»Defect
Area»Skyline
Priority»3
From an email thread 4/1/2021 "What if we allowed Skyline > File > Share > Complete to optionally include raw files?"
------------------------
Brendan MacLean Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM
to Vagisha, me, Skyline

It could also be truly huge in the case of large HRMS experiments. For Panorama, I am not sure it wouldn’t be better to allow the option to upload the raw data outside the .sky.zip file. We also already have something of a problem with duplicating large amounts of unchanging bytes in our .sky.zip files from libraries to an unchanging .skyd file.

For support, it often seems to me that we need just one data file. Maybe we should have a menu command to upload to support and have a bit more latitude on that to add raw data. That to me seems like the best way to lower the support cost of getting people to post what you need to files.url. It could even support pointing at a set of files you are trying to build into a spectral library and zipping every this necessary, since we often spend time explaining we need mzXML and not just the pepXML, and mqpar.xml, etc.

Sounds like a good intern project.


On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:27 AM Vagisha Sharma <vsharma@uw.edu> wrote:
This would be great, I think. Some users are confused about why they have to upload raw data in addition to the Skyline documents for Panorama Public, especially since they can see the chromatograms in Panorama with just the Skyline document. It would break some of our Panorama code which expects all the raw data to be in a specific location but it definitely would make it easier for the user.

Thanks,
Vagisha

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:14 PM Brian Pratt <bspratt@proteinms.net> wrote:
It would simplify a lot of support issues where we have to ask twice. Users seem to intuitively expect it to already work that way.