• FEATURES
  • PRICING
  • MARKETPLACE
  • CASE STUDIES
  • BLOG
    •

    Storage container auto naming issues

    Product Features
    #1

    hi Poornima, OS Community

    I tried to ask my question today in the Webinar and you mentioned to post it. This is my third posting of it, in some form or another.

    So we are currently using OS 1.0.1. When Gilbert entered the freezers, Open Specimen renamed them based on the site. That is not convenient to us and confusing as well. On the other hand we do not want to set up the container labels to be manually since this is time consuming. We had no issues in the previous version, where the name of the freezer would be appended to the shelf, drawer, rack, box names. For example we have a freezer called: 5A1_FR_292757, and we want this to be appended to the Shelf name: 5A1_FR_292757_shelf_2 instead of Sitename_shelf2 etc. It was doing that in caTissue 1.2 and caTissue Plus. One option would be to change the names in the corresponding table in the database, but that is also time consuming

    How can we solve this? We have over 1440 entry for the different freezers, drawers, etc and Gilbert cannot keep repeating the work. I would like to know if this is found in OS 1.1? I would also like to know what did the more advanced members in the community like in Wash U and JHU do, what options did they follow or how they tackled this issue if they faced it. We would really appreciate your help/tips.

    By the way Poornima, Gilbert went by your suggestion and he is not getting the box in box dilemma anymore, thanks.

    Regards

    Nadia

    #2

    Hi @Nan_Halabi

    We have used manual lebel configuration thus far, as study teams tend to have naming configurations specific to their freezers, racks, and boxes. Were you using an automatic naming configuration in caTissue 1.2 and Plus?

    Matt

    #3

    Hello Matt,

    Thanks for your response back. Yea we have been using the automatic naming in the previous and this current version, but had no problems before.

    Isn’t though manual naming time consuming? do you have a process for it?

    Are you using OS and what version?

    Regards and have a great day

    Nadia

    #4

    Created an improvement ticket for OS v2.x release to provide better support for auto container naming.
    https://catissueplus.atlassian.net/browse/OPSMN-1707

    ~Sri

    1 Like
    #5

    Hello Sri,

    Great. Thank you

    Regards

    Nadia

    #6

    @Nan_Halabi manual naming is a bit time consuming, and generally each study team uses a standard naming configuration specific to their study. At this time, naming configurations vary across study teams. Typically the box name contains the collection protocol short title. Rack names typically contain the freezer name.

    We are in the process of upgrading to OS v1.1

    #7

    Hello Matt

    Thank you for your response back and your clarification. I will share this info with Gilbert.

    Will see maybe, in version 2.0 there will be some changes and ways to make the naming easier for whoever is entering the info.

    So you are upgrading to OS 1.1, from which version? Please let me know how the process goes for you.

    Regards

    Nadia

    #8

    Hey Matt,

    I was thinking since Sri has a ticket for freezer naming in version 2.0, maybe we can ask the OS community and see what is their method of naming? What are their suggestions for naming options? Maybe we can have some kind of naming standardization in a future version. Just an idea.

    Ciao

    Nadia

    #9

    Hi, Nadia. We are going from caTissue Plus v3.0 to OpenSpecimen v1.1. So far, I think the only issue we have yet to resolve is what appears to be a few mismatched Bulk Operations templates.

    #10

    Hi Bob

    Hopefully things will go smoothly for you.

    As far as the Bulk Operations templates, is it a naming conflict?

    Regards

    Nadia

    #11

    @Nan_Halabi I agree with you Nadia, it would be beneficial to learn of other naming conventions for storage containers. Perhaps as a start, would you be willing to work together on drafting some guidelines for storage container naming configuration? And maybe others in the community would like to work together too. Let me know what you think. And perhaps with Krishagni’s help @pgovindrao we could post the draft somewhere public. Is this something that would be helpful?

    #12

    Hello Matt

    Thanks for your message and suggestions.I think that would be helpful and that the OS community can benefit from.

    I would be willing to do that, but not sure exactly how to tackle that. I am open for suggestions.

    To start with, it would be helpful if we know what are the naming conventions (for storage containers) that folks in other institutions are following and what versions they use, and whether they have any customization done or not.

    Regards

    Nadia