Hi @raphaelleman ,
I'm under the impression that these 2 lines should be removed:
|
probaSSPhysioMut <- tmpTableSeqPhy$proba[1] |
|
classProbaSSPhysioMut <- tmpTableSeqPhy$classProba[1] |
as they are trying to fill probaSSPhysioMut and classProbaSSPhysioMut from tmpTableSeqPhy instead of tmpTableSeqPhyMut.
probaSSPhysioMut and classProbaSSPhysioMut seem to be already properly set slightly below:
|
if(nrow(tmpTableSeqPhyMut)>0){ |
|
probaSSPhysioMut <- tmpTableSeqPhyMut$proba[1] |
|
classProbaSSPhysioMut <- tmpTableSeqPhyMut$classProba[1] |
but that will overwrite them
only when
nrow(tmpTableSeqPhyMut)>0, if it's not the case, the 2 (wrong?) values set l.1167 to 1168 will remain and have the exact same value as
probaSSPhysio and
classProbaSSPhysio.
Could you confirm if it's indeed a bug? I could open a Pull request to remove these 2 lines if it helps.
Regards.
Hi @raphaelleman ,
I'm under the impression that these 2 lines should be removed:
SPiP/RefFiles/SPiP_libs/SPiP_functions.r
Lines 1167 to 1168 in cae95fe
as they are trying to fill
probaSSPhysioMutandclassProbaSSPhysioMutfromtmpTableSeqPhyinstead oftmpTableSeqPhyMut.probaSSPhysioMutandclassProbaSSPhysioMutseem to be already properly set slightly below:SPiP/RefFiles/SPiP_libs/SPiP_functions.r
Lines 1176 to 1178 in cae95fe
but that will overwrite them only when
nrow(tmpTableSeqPhyMut)>0, if it's not the case, the 2 (wrong?) values set l.1167 to 1168 will remain and have the exact same value asprobaSSPhysioandclassProbaSSPhysio.Could you confirm if it's indeed a bug? I could open a Pull request to remove these 2 lines if it helps.
Regards.