-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 159
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
[REF] refactor institution and task tables #1397
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1397 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.88% 89.70% +1.82%
==========================================
Files 14 12 -2
Lines 1279 1185 -94
==========================================
- Hits 1124 1063 -61
+ Misses 155 122 -33 see 6 files with indirect coverage changes Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
iEEG beforeiEEG after |
@effigies here too added links and screenshots to point to the "most obvious" changes. |
I find it a bit weird that after the specific sections (that contain REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL fields), there are additional sections for REQUIRED, ... fields 🤔 it might lead to confusion, what do you think? |
Maybe a better way to organize things ⬇️ ?
|
FYI: I am breaking things into separate tables because currently macros do not sort items by their requirement level (AFAIK). |
@sappelhoff I have reorganized things as described above. Let me know what you think. |
Actually looking at the new microscopy page, I have question: Do we agree that, within a metadata table, requirement level takes precedence over alphabetical order for sorting items? So REQUIRED items appear higher in the tables than RECOMMENDED, but all REQUIRED items must be sorted alphabetically? If so I should probably reorganize some of the microscopy tables? See the sample one, for example: Alternatively I could also create a table for required items and one for recommended as this a pattern we have in many other datatypes. Preferences? Suggestions? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like it now and I think it's an improvement! Thanks Remi
So REQUIRED items appear higher in the tables than RECOMMENDED, but all REQUIRED items must be sorted alphabetically?
+1
Given the scope of the PR I'll need to take a closer look before giving an approving review, but I really like the general change. |
@bids-standard/maintainers if one of you has time to give this another review so it can go in |
Also adds comments for several macros in the nirs page.