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

[FIX] change remaining latin expressions (etc and i.e.) #628

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Oct 7, 2020

Conversation

Remi-Gau
Copy link
Collaborator

@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau commented Oct 1, 2020

TO DO

  • fix remaining latin expression (etc and i.e)
  • lint tables
  • lint paragraphs
    • enforce line length
    • start sentences in a new line if the modified paragraph

for reviewers

@effigies @sappelhoff

This one is more complicated than for e.g.. I am not sure that some of the changes I made "read well": suggestions welcome.

I will get on to the linting once we agree on the content, if that is fine with you

This will most likely create merge conflicts after #626 is merged (because it seems Latin expressions tend to live in pack and cluster), so let me know whether we should:

Not sure that the specs have a position on the sempiternal "Oxford comma" debate... But this PR might raise the question. 😝

@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau added this to the 1.4.1 milestone Oct 1, 2020
Copy link
Member

@sappelhoff sappelhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @Remi-Gau!

This one is more complicated than for e.g.. I am not sure that some of the changes I made "read well": suggestions welcome.

I would more often simply drop "etc." completely instead of replacing it with "and so on"

merge #626 first and then solve conflicts (my personal preference)

fine with me 👍

Not sure that the specs have a position on the sempiternal "Oxford comma" debate... But this PR might raise the question. stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes

I use that kind of comma and feel like it helps the reading flow, but I never dove into the debate 🤷‍♂️ ... yet I would be a strong +1 on using it (also in this PR)


Let's wait for another reviewer (at least one) to confirm / discomfirm my opinions ... then make the changes (or not) ... then review in detail :-)

@Remi-Gau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Remi-Gau commented Oct 1, 2020 via email

@sappelhoff
Copy link
Member

On related issue: would it make sense to "install" the github action used by the Turing way to check our content for Latin expressions to ensure we don't have to redo this in the future?

probably worth looking into, good idea! 👍 we'd have to clarify what else they are linting / checking, and make sure that all of these steps are (or can be) configured to our liking.

If you have time and interest to do that, I'd appreciate a short report and potentially a new PR :-)

@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau closed this Oct 1, 2020
@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau reopened this Oct 1, 2020
@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau marked this pull request as ready for review October 2, 2020 13:23
@Remi-Gau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Remi-Gau commented Oct 2, 2020

Will mark this as ready for review to see how many conflicts we have.

@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Oct 5, 2020

Will mark this as ready for review to see how many conflicts we have.

lots

@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Oct 5, 2020

For the sake of not breaking all PRs, I commented out i.e. and etc in 11caf05. When you're ready to review, make sure you're based off of master and uncomment those. I will go through and comment on wording now.

Copy link
Collaborator

@effigies effigies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some opinions.

CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/02-common-principles.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/02-common-principles.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/04-modality-specific-files/05-task-events.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/99-appendices/01-contributors.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/99-appendices/05-units.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/99-appendices/06-meg-file-formats.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/99-appendices/09-entities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/02-common-principles.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ SHOULD be present:
| reference | OPTIONAL | Specification of the reference (e.g., 'mastoid', 'ElectrodeName01', 'intracranial', 'CAR', 'other', 'n/a'). If the channel is not an electrode channel (e.g., a microphone channel) use `n/a`. |
| group | OPTIONAL | Which group of channels (grid/strip/seeg/depth) this channel belongs to. This is relevant because one group has one cable-bundle and noise can be shared. This can be a name or number. Note that any groups specified in `_electrodes.tsv` must match those present here. |
| sampling_frequency | OPTIONAL | Sampling rate of the channel in Hz. |
| description | OPTIONAL | Brief free-text description of the channel, or other information of interest (e.g., position (e.g., "left lateral temporal surface", etc.). |
| description | OPTIONAL | Brief free-text description of the channel, or other information of interest (e.g., position (e.g., "left lateral temporal surface")). |
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is it me and my sleep deprivation, but aren't these nested parenthesis hard to parse for the average human being?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with you, and I just had 8 hours of sound sleep :-)

should be easy to avoid nested brackets in this case

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that I had a similar thought at one point and tried switching to square brackets nested in the parentheses, but that doesn't play well with markdown (or maybe one of the other formatters that the specification uses).

@Remi-Gau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Remi-Gau commented Oct 6, 2020

Well... That was "fun"... Let's NEVER do that again.

git_merge

When we are OK on content, I will finalize the linting of the tables.

Copy link
Collaborator

@effigies effigies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here are my suggestions.

src/02-common-principles.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/99-appendices/01-contributors.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/schema/entities.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Oct 6, 2020

Closing/reopening to re-run the RTD build.

@effigies effigies closed this Oct 6, 2020
@effigies effigies reopened this Oct 6, 2020
@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Oct 6, 2020

@Remi-Gau Do you mind if I just quickly push a few formatting changes, rather than another round of suggestions?

@Remi-Gau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Remi-Gau commented Oct 6, 2020

@Remi-Gau Do you mind if I just quickly push a few formatting changes, rather than another round of suggestions?

@effigies Be my guest !!!!

@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Oct 6, 2020

The first commit was just sed -i -e 's/[\t ]*$//' src/**/*.md, so it went a bit out of scope for the PR. Can do it on master, if we prefer.

Copy link
Collaborator

@effigies effigies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm happy with this PR.

Copy link
Member

@sappelhoff sappelhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks @Remi-Gau and @effigies

edit: seems like I introduced a conflict by merging the HED PR first. I'll fix that.

@sappelhoff sappelhoff merged commit fe3b79e into bids-standard:master Oct 7, 2020
@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau deleted the remi-fix_latin branch November 10, 2020 05:50
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.

4 participants