-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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
Adding ability to specify a filter with REMOVE #124
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.
I'm having a hard time figuring out the purpose of the missing, present, and empty expanders in this situation - and what the expected results should be. In my testing REMOVE ALL empty
removed all tags. I was left with a header that contained only those items that I added back in after performing the REMOVE ALL empty
.
My expectation would be that REMOVE ALL empty
would remove tags that contained empty values. I don't quite understand how present
or missing
would apply to values.
Yeah I was just thinking about this too - I was grabbing the filters from the list already derived, but I don't think those particular filters make sense. I'm going to remove them. |
oops didn't mean to close it. |
a455463
to
633a4bd
Compare
Currently, REMOVE <field> can handle a func:, however since we are returning a boolean, we can easily also support the already existing filters that return a boolean (contains, equals, etc.) This change will allow for those filters. Signed-off-by: vsoch <vsochat@stanford.edu>
633a4bd
to
10d9889
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.
Looks good!
@wetzelj let me think about your comment:
In that adding private tags will mean parsing over the tag objects (which reveal data elements) I'm actually thinking that these two separate issues need to be addressed at the same time - we will be able to easily loop over private tags if the get/set is available. I can't promise starting on this today, but soon! |
No problem! I appreciate all of your work on this! |
Currently, REMOVE can handle a func:, however since we are returning a boolean, we can easily also support the already existing filters that return a boolean (contains, equals, etc.) This
change will allow for those filters. This will address #123, pinging @wetzelj
Signed-off-by: vsoch vsochat@stanford.edu
Questions that require more discussion or to be addressed in future development: