consider creating a GH action that can run this workflow with mock data

[cjyetman]

it would be ideal to have some automated CI running here

[jdhoffa]

Let's make a friggin mock data repo!!!!! that would be a huge immediate gain IMO
@fariiaakh @AlexAxthelm

[fariiaakh]

A mock data repo that creates mock data?

[jdhoffa]

Indeed! Similar to: https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/r2dii.data
But for pacta.data.preparation inputs

(Alternatively we can potentially bundle it in with pacta.data.preparation, I just envision a future where we may want the mock data in another context)

[cjyetman]

hopefully the repo is not "mock" and just the data is 😆

[cjyetman]

I think this might fit in well with pacta.data.validation

[jdhoffa]

^ Agree

[cjyetman]

tagging this as blocked until such mock data exists (which is arguably much more difficult than creating the GH action that would use it)

[cjyetman]

Once pacta.data.preparation is public (https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/pacta.data.preparation/issues/283), I think we will move towards a GH action that runs this with real data, in which case this issue will be no longer relevant? @jdhoffa

[AlexAxthelm]

I think this remains relevant, since the "mock data" version is then effectively part of our public documentation / quickstart guide

[jdhoffa]

Yeah definitely agreed, template data is very useful in any case IMO

[cjyetman]

Would it be appropriate for this repo to "mock" its input data as a sort of documentation, rather than the repo that makes them?

[AlexAxthelm]

I think that would be the right call

[cjyetman]

hmmm.... I think the thing that creates something should document what it creates, rather than all the things that use it.

[jdhoffa]

I agree with @AlexAxthelm on this one, the package should clearly document/ mock its inputs.

If you have a function f(x) -> y, and a mocked input x, you can easily determine y.
If on the other hand, you document the outputs, then you have y and the function f(x), but you can't (easily) determine x.

[cjyetman]

closing in favor of RMI-PACTA/archive.pacta.data.preparation#190