-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Invalid columns in compact manifest for AnVIL #6110
Comments
This is the main part, it does break the IT.
Name special fields in camel case on AnVIL. This repairs the IT.
This is the main part, it does break the IT.
Name special fields in camel case on AnVIL. This repairs the IT.
This is the main part, it does break the IT.
Name special fields in camel case on AnVIL. This repairs the IT.
Name special fields in camel case on AnVIL. This repairs the IT.
For demo, show compact manifest on |
This is the main part, it does break the IT.
Name special fields in camel case on AnVIL. This repairs the IT.
Discovered during demo that the manifest contains additional columns compared to the |
Additionally, the service response contains the |
The manifest has |
|
Assignee to consider next steps. |
Spike in |
Only in the manifest
Only in the /index/{entity} response
Mismatches
|
For demo, repeat the spike (before demo) and review differences (during demo). I would like to be present at that demo. |
species
for example, but there could be others. There may also be missing columns or extra columns. We didn't put a lot of effort into curating the manifest config for AnVIL. The default approach should be to include all fields as columns in a compact manifest and to derive the manifest config from the field mapping for the/index/…
endpoints.The HCA manifest is a hand-curated set of fields but we've learned that no matter what set of fields we pick, there will always be people requesting yet another field to be included, so maintaining that set became a whack-a-mole. There will always be people who request that fields be removed because they don't see a use case for those fields, which seems short-sighted/pedantic to me. The only valid reasons not to include a field should be technical limitations, e.g., size, cardinality.
The current manifest config for AnVIL also uses a naming convention that is inconsistent with the naming of fields in the
/index/…
endpoint responses. The Data Browser doesn't currently expose the compact manifest so we should be able to rename columns using the same dotted convention used for the/index/…
endpoints which itself is based on the naming of fields in the AnVIL schema.[edit] Quick link to important comment detailing the implementation plan.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: