Repository navigation
Conversation
Automated Review URLs |
|
Might benefit from a template, i.e. for RFCs and comments? |
|
Also; it may be worth to drop the affiliations from the rendered text, similar to how it's done at ngff-spec. The reasoning there was, that a person's orcid is likely informative enough about past and present affiliations. |
in theory, yes, it should. in practice, I need to keep the information provided by the authors on under which affiliation that comment was made. an example is the rfc 9 / comment 5 Anna Kreshuk - ilastik was the intended affiliation, though that is a project and not an employee, and not listed on https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1334-6388 |
Partially addresses ome#576
|
Did you mean to bump |
gouttegd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just commenting for now. I have mostly looked at the LinkML stuff, not the Python code in details.
That is excellent, thank you. I'll actually refactor some of it as you suggested. As I mentioned in the PR description, there is a lot that was generated with Claude assist. Reviewed, but still, it is a big change, so I am not sure how to make the review process less painful. |
|
Something that bumps me mildly is that the author information is rendered differently for the RFC document itself (the old table) and the reviews/comments/etc, where the frontmatter yaml is used. I think jupyter-book or myst-md are also able to do this based on frontmatter yaml that looks very similar to what we have here. If you check the auto-built metadata examples and schema markdown files that are generated by the to make sure that we don't render the author information on every page of the examples and schemas section ^^" |
@jo-mueller I think I don't get exactly what you mean here. Would you mind rephrasing your suggestion? |
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
First step towards a system with more automation/standardization for rfc status management.
German-BioImaging/ome-zarr-ideas#54
Next steps:
EDIT: Ready to review!
To review:
Compare the generated RFC pages with the older one.
Provide feedback on the new look and feel and if changes are needed
Compare the page listing the different RFCs with the older one
If checking all 57 documents is too much, pick a sample and see if it is okay
If you are a schema person, look at
rfc/schema/front_matter.yamlfor the LinkML schemaIf you are a sphinx person, look at
_extanddocument_authors.pyandrfc_status.pyand see if the directives make senseNote that a lot of the code and changes have been aided by a Claude Opus 5 agent, though I tried to steer for minimal changes and maximize readability.