-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Replace code block-based issue template with GitHub issue form #558
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Awesome. Thank you. Apologies for the slow reply.
Since MIxS 6.2+ is LinkML based, there isn't any such thing as a "Structured comment name" anymore (etc., etc.). I can help you align the terminology in this template with the new vocabulary of term attributes if you want.
Hi @turbomam - sure! I'm still on parental leave and today I have to travel, so it will be a bit of time until I could get to this. Feel free to edit my fork directly and merge if you have permissions, otherwise you can make code suggestions on the PR and I can commit them (something j can do at least from the GitHub app) |
@turbomam I've updated based on what @sujaypatil96 linked to in #678. I've moved the 'old names' into the description, and added two new questions for the unit/multivalue entries. |
@sujaypatil96 please integrate this into one of your forks so that we can go through the experience of creating an issue based on this new YAML template |
@jfy133 it looks like GitHub is complaining about some YAML syntax error in your issue form: https://github.com/jfy133/genomics-standards-consortium-mixs/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/TERM-REQUEST.yml Could you fix that? |
Done, sorry about that - uninformative errors took a bit of experimenting. Please use the GitHub 'view file' functionality to make sure you're happy with everything (e.g. I can't remember if Multivalued was meant to be required or not) etc. |
Hi @turbomam , I agree that structured comment name is not a LinkML thing, but it is still what we call it in GSC-MIXS, so I think it best that it is shown as such in the template. |
@only1chunts it's still listed as in the 'description', or would you rather still have it as the 'primary' name? But otherwise: @turbomam @sujaypatil96 you're more than welcome to directly add the PR either with comment suggestion or push to branch |
|
OK, So that "previously known as" bit should be removed as well then (its not "previously known as" it is still known as), if you want to add what the appropriate LinkML word is for it there instead then that could be done (I guess in LinkML its called "title" is it? which sounds rather mis-leading to me as its not a title at all, its really just an alternative name that was created entirely for the INSDC because they auto truncate names longer than 20char) |
Ah ok fair enough. I was just following the request above to follow the table from the Tech group meeting back in June. I think it's best if you and, Sujay, Mark discuss it and edit the PR (as it's just terminology now I guess), as I have no opinion either way, and then merge when you have a consensus :) |
Thanks for the great discussion guys @only1chunts what is the requirement for continuing to use language like "Structured comment name"? Or heavens forbid "Expected value"? Those terms aren't defined anywhere in the schema. I don't think they are even defined anywhere in the whole MIxS repo. Where are they defined in some actionable way? This repo will be harder for everyone to understand if we use terminology that isn't tightly coupled with the repo artifacts. If someone wants to look through the schema to see examples of existing "Structured comment names", how would they do that? We had an agreement about mappings between the old nomenclature and the new LinkML-biased nomenclature, although I will admit that we didn't agree to retire the legacy MIxS nomenclature. I think a form with a header called @cmungall has made a very preliminary proposal for mapping between LinkML metaslots (like |
the issue here was that it was proposed that "structured comment name" would be called "Title", which is not something that has been proposed before, but as you suggest and as the document you point to suggests, changing "structured comment name" to "name" is acceptable and should not confuse anyone. But it does mean the template layout needs to be corrected in the wording to ensure consistent use of the mapped terminology. |
I dont know how to go about suggesting changes to the file here, so as its just one small file I've copied and pasted it here with my suggested changes:
|
From my phone so can't send screenshot but to make suggestion detailed instructions are as follows
|
I think this might be a bit easier for users to rapidly make the term request, as they can copy and paste into clear blocks, without having to remove the placeholder texts.
I'm happy to convert the other templates as well if you are interested.