-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
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
ENH: add BIDS output version checker #456
Conversation
Best reviewed: commit by commit
Optimal code review plan (3 warnings)
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #456 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 61.12% 57.59% -3.53%
==========================================
Files 61 61
Lines 6119 6129 +10
Branches 710 712 +2
==========================================
- Hits 3740 3530 -210
- Misses 2336 2545 +209
- Partials 43 54 +11
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
9a2e5d0
to
1c952be
Compare
1c952be
to
f85a3f7
Compare
Co-Authored-By: Oscar Esteban <code@oscaresteban.es>
Co-Authored-By: Oscar Esteban <code@oscaresteban.es>
this is all set |
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.
Final super nit-picky nitpicks.
Examples | ||
-------- | ||
>>> check_pipeline_version('1.1.1rc5', 'sample_dataset_description.json') | ||
>>> check_pipeline_version('1.1.1rc5+129.gbe0e5158', 'sample_dataset_description.json') |
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.
what do you think about dropping the private part of the version in this context, @effigies?
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.
Yeah, I think it's probably fine? It should only bite us with people playing with :unstable
, and they presumably know there are risks.
97ea2f0
to
eec19be
Compare
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.
Does it make sense to check both the pipeline name and version?
I based this on the assumption the |
Yeah, this is fine. We can add features in the future. |
started as nipreps/fmriprep#1526, but should be extendible to any package producing BIDS compliant outputs