Cleanup manifest

[nclack]

closes #17

This removes several fields. These include

• contributions
• license (keep)
• categories
• preview
• private

I also went through and tried to remove comments, TODO's, add field documentation, etc.

The EXAMPLE folder was removed; it contained an old example.

Please note TODO's and FIXME's that you'd like to keep.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #38 (9964f72) into main (6227387) will increase coverage by 0.28%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 9964f72 differs from pull request most recent head 01e03be. Consider uploading reports for the commit 01e03be to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #38      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.53%   87.82%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        1051     1043       -8     
==========================================
- Hits          920      916       -4     
+ Misses        131      127       -4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
npe2/_command_registry.py	87.80% <ø> (ø)
npe2/_from_npe1.py	92.26% <100.00%> (+0.64%)	⬆️
npe2/_plugin_manager.py	92.04% <100.00%> (ø)
npe2/manifest/schema.py	77.63% <100.00%> (+0.44%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6227387...01e03be. Read the comment docs.

[nclack]

I'm in favor of handling this w #29 right now; the cli tool can do some initial validation to type check.

[nclack]

this fixes some broken tests I was getting on the napari side. napari's CI misses these at the moment because npe2 isn't installed when the test suite is running.

[nclack]

This is related to the discussion in #37. I think the best approach is to require the name to be the package name. I haven't changed any of the validation so #37 is still an issue.

[tlambert03]

hmm, i didn't particularly mind most of the comments that you removed here. I think many of them are still "open questions" that haven't received any particularly special attention that warrants comment removal. or are perhaps just generally useful in terms of where the code was inspired (such as the vscode comments).
Can you perhaps return the comments and just focus on the fields that you want to modify?

[nclack]

Can you perhaps return the comments and just focus on the fields that you want to modify?

Yes. Let me know if I missed anything.

I'm keeping this in sync w #40

[tlambert03]

why are you removing license (like other fields, it could certainly be auto-populated by package metadata... but does it need to be removed?)

[tlambert03]

outside of license, this is fine with me. Can we leave that discussion for another PR?

I think we generally need to consider the process of taking data from setup.cfg a little better. Let's keep it independent of "cleanup"

[nclack]

license

added back.

need to consider the process of taking data from setup.cfg a little better

agreed. I also like the idea of separating that discussion from this issue.