Cornelius Roemer

I just clicked on the link - that was it. I'll try again tomorrow.

Hmm - can't reproduce anymore

Fantastic Ivan, I will give this a deep check today. You're a 🌟

On way to surface coverage would be in the `missing` column - and/or the tooltip. After all it's related to missing, it's missing inside + missing at terminals.

I think it would be good to flag this as a moderate QC issue - but not cause a sequence to be red. That's why I suggested a max QC...

>regarding how to surface: People have been confused that short sequences are labeled as shiny high quality ones. But it is not a quality issue per se. A little torn...

So if we don't put it as a QC metric, we'd have to change the code a bit, right? @ivan-aksamentov Surface it as a column of its own, just as...

Thanks that's great. I wouldn't yet include ref length and covered nucs - these are pretty easily derived as is. We can always add them later but removing columns is...

@ivan-aksamentov I'd get rid of the covered-nucs and ref-length columns for now and reduce the number of significant figures to 5 for the float of coverage. Also if we could...

It's OK as a safety latch mechanism but we really should display all sequences up to the point where the number crosses the threshold. Maybe we can keep track of...