feat: Generic record

[lskatz]

Per issue #440 this is a generic record. It has a way to read/write fasta/fastq. I also think it could be expanded.

[lskatz]

I ran cargo fmt which I guess fixes this error?

[dcroote]

Yes cargo fmt enables the formatting check to pass. See the Contributing section of the README for how pre-commit can be used to format locally and avoid the CI failure.

The other failing test appears to be complaining about the PR title. Perhaps "feat: Generic record" ?

[lskatz]

Ok thanks! I ran pre-commit but it doesn't seem to have made any other changes. I also edited the PR to have feat: . Should I do anything else?

[lskatz]

The last failing test cargo tarpaulin is also a failure with origin/master when I run it locally, and so I'm not really sure what to do about that. Any advice?

[lskatz]

Hi @dcroote I'm not really clear on the error

[natir]

@lskatz I can't reproduce CI failed maybe it's just a bug in compilation process I rerun the test.

[lskatz]

Thank you for looking at it!

[lskatz]

Looks like it passed?

[tedil]

There's also #433 about unifying FASTA/FASTQ to FASTX, which triggered a lot of discussion on how best to implement it to avoid overhead and ultimately tried different approaches (have both records implement a common Record trait, have a wrapping enum EitherRecord. Perhaps that would already cover your use-cases?

[lskatz]

@tedil amazing! Yes. I think there is a lot more thought though into fastx than what I did.

[lskatz]

But I guess it's not implemented yet? And this might be an easier patch in the meantime?

[anuradhawick]

Hi, are there any updates on this?

I was also wondering if Record could be a trait so id() and seq() could be called on any record (fasta, fastq). Thanks