Skip to content
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

📝 Add clarifying comments in default pipeline config #1797

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

clane9
Copy link
Contributor

@clane9 clane9 commented Oct 12, 2022

Description

This PR adds a few clarifying comments to the default pipeline_config_default.yml to help users understand the different config options.

Checklist

  • My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title like Update index.md).
  • My pull request targets the develop branch of the repository.
  • My commit messages follow best practices.
  • My code follows the established code style of the repository.
  • I added tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
  • I updated the changelog.
  • I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
  • I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

Copy link
Contributor

@gkiar gkiar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! I wonder if we want to merge now or wait until we redo the naming to have regressor names in the files? @sgiavasis @shnizzedy ?

@shnizzedy
Copy link
Member

I wonder if we want to merge now or wait until we redo the naming to have regressor names in the files?

Good question. Since this PR is marked as a draft I thought it wasn't ready to merge yet, but I think as it stands

  • this added comment
    # If multiple groups of regressors are included (as in the default
    # pipeline), each group will be applied to the data separately, resulting in
    # one preprocessed bold series per group. E.g., `*-preproc-1_bold.nii.gz`
    # and `*-preproc-2_bold.nii.gz` if there are two groups.
    is clarifying
  • after/in 🎨 Change -s in BIDS values to camelCase #1825 we'd want to drop the extra hyphens (`*-preproc-1_bold.nii.gz` and `*-preproc-2_bold.nii.gz``*-preproc1_bold.nii.gz` and `*-preproc2_bold.nii.gz`

I don't see any harm in clarifying while necessary and updating/removing once we update the desc entities to be more verbose

@clane9
Copy link
Contributor Author

clane9 commented Nov 11, 2022

@shnizzedy, @gkiar I'm fine with merging this now if you want. But I planned to add more notes after going through the default config in more detail. Lmk what you want to do.

@shnizzedy
Copy link
Member

I planned to add more notes after going through the default config in more detail. Lmk what you want to do.

Up to you!

I think we should at least wait until #1825 and/or #1831 get merged in so we keep the regressor-fork examples in sync with what C-PAC actually does, but I'm fine either way if you want to go ahead and merge soon or wait until closer to release time if you think you'll get through more of the default config by then

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants