Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

added the importance: required|recommended|optional to each of the fi… #39

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

virag-compbio
Copy link

Added the "importance" field in the markdown files corresponding to the individual sheets in the ghga_submission_full.xlsx

Understandably, the importance field could take one of three values:

  1. required
  2. recommended
  3. optional

As of now, there is only one field "required" which is a boolean (True|False), which is also not so intuitive for experimentalists/people working on the bench.

Copy link
Member

@sbilge sbilge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello Virag, I noticed that the script does not appear to have been updated to reflect the changes you intended for the data_dictionary files. These files are autogenerated by the update_metadata_docs.py script located in the scripts folder, which should have been modified accordingly.

…d the same in the sheet_documentation_template.md.jinja
@virag-compbio
Copy link
Author

Hello Virag, I noticed that the script does not appear to have been updated to reflect the changes you intended for the data_dictionary files. These files are autogenerated by the update_metadata_docs.py script located in the scripts folder, which should have been modified accordingly.

Hi Bilge,
The update_metatdata_docs.py has been updated. And the "significance" slot is also added to the template file i.e. docs/templates/sheet_documentation_template.md.jinja

Please note that I have renamed the slot "importance" to "significance" now. Everything else remains the same.

Thanks

@sbilge sbilge self-requested a review December 17, 2024 10:15
@mauerk
Copy link
Member

mauerk commented Dec 17, 2024

Hi Virag, thanks for adding this missing information. My idea would be to deprecate the "required: True / False" flag in the documentation and change the "significance" to "requirement", which can take one of "optional / recommended / required" to avoid redundancy. As an visual aid, "required" could be highlighted with a different text color (if possible). What do you think?

scripts/update_metadata_docs.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
virag-compbio and others added 4 commits December 17, 2024 13:48
…ng scheme for different slots - red for required, blue for recommended, green for optional fields. The required field is deprecated. The requirement field is introduced now
@virag-compbio
Copy link
Author

Hi Virag, thanks for adding this missing information. My idea would be to deprecate the "required: True / False" flag in the documentation and change the "significance" to "requirement", which can take one of "optional / recommended / required" to avoid redundancy. As an visual aid, "required" could be highlighted with a different text color (if possible). What do you think?

Hi Karo,
Thanks for the suggestion regarding the coloring scheme.
I have implemented that now and the required field is removed.

So we now have the field/slot called requirement which can take one of the three values:

  1. Required - colored in red
  2. Recommended - colored in blue
  3. Optional - colored in green

The template file has been modified accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants