Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[FIX] Rewrite the MRI/fieldmaps subsection for consistency with the rest of specs #651
[FIX] Rewrite the MRI/fieldmaps subsection for consistency with the rest of specs #651
Changes from 1 commit
648471c
ca5dcb8
6e05ad6
dd3c87f
d81d291
7533998
1c63137
9d1c49b
ea830e5
504dd30
353d346
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Including brackets around the whole filename to indicate that it's an optional file isn't used consistently across the specification. I think it really only shows up in the MEG/EEG sections, so I'm not sure if we want to introduce it here.
Also, the schema isn't capable of storing that kind of information at the moment, so those brackets will be removed when/if #610 is merged.
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.
Not sure what the alternative would be. Any suggestions?
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 think it'd be fine not to communicate requirement level in the "template" section. After all, we are also not distinguishing between recommended and required files either. Users can see which files are optional from the spec text.
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 not particularly attached to this indication of an optional data object, but I think there are two different discussions here.
magnitude2
must be found (phase1/2 fieldmaps) or is optional (phasediff fieldmaps).IMHO, 1) is harder to address, and outside the scope of this PR -- I guess that merging #610 will have to address this question, and if that means that the brackets in the template are gone because some other mechanism implements this, I'm fine by that (that's how BIDS evolves, anyways).
Then 2) - I think that the Template is basically what most of the people check when preparing their data. Therefore, I think this is the most effective way of expressing that this element is optional. It also needs to be clearly stated within the text, but considering that magnitude2 may and may not be optional (phasediff and phase1/2, respectively), there is a larger chance this is lost in some future refactor. For clarity, I think having the template annotated with requirement levels, especially when irregular, is very useful.
@tsalo: would something like:
work out?
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.
There really isn't any mechanism for stating that some suffixes or extensions are optional in combination with others in the schema at the moment, so #610 will erase any indications of that from templates and users will need to rely on the text for that kind of information. I don't think it's that big a deal to address this issue in #610 though.
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 would you prefer then for this PR?
or
I'm leaning towards the
# OPTIONAL
annotation which is more visible and obvious - WDYT?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 think
# OPTIONAL
works well.