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

Update API calls in NOM visualizations to reflect Berkeley schema #80

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 2, 2024

Conversation

samobermiller
Copy link
Collaborator

@samobermiller samobermiller commented Sep 30, 2024

PR updating API calls in NOM visualizations to Berkeley schema. microbiomedata/issues#726

All Submissions:

  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
  • Does your PR link to an issue?
  • Have you described the changes this PR will make?

Notebook Fix Submissions:

  • Does your PR include links to the updated notebook (in the branch) for review using nbviewer, Colab, and reviewnb? These three are the preferred ways to review changes and additions to notebooks during review.

Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
},
Copy link
Collaborator

@kheal kheal Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OmicsProcessing should be DataGeneration in first line of this narrative.


Reply via ReviewNB

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
},
Copy link
Collaborator

@kheal kheal Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Find the "data generation records" rather than "omics processing records" (first sentence). Also "input to the omics processing records" in last sentence should be "data generation records"


Reply via ReviewNB

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
},
Copy link
Collaborator

@kheal kheal Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Line #1.    omicsprocess_dataobj=func.get_id_results(

Change the name of the python objects to remove "omicsprocessing" please.


Reply via ReviewNB

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
},
Copy link
Collaborator

@kheal kheal Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"omics processing records" should be "data generation records"


Reply via ReviewNB

@kheal
Copy link
Collaborator

kheal commented Oct 1, 2024

Nice job @samobermiller and @bmeluch. I found a few references to "omics processing" that should be "data generation", but the functionality looks great.

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
},
Copy link
Contributor

@brynnz22 brynnz22 Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Change "Find the omics processing records" to "Find the data generation records" Also, change the variables from omics_processing_id omicsprocess_has_output omicsprocess_has_input to allude to data generation.


Reply via ReviewNB

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
},
Copy link
Contributor

@brynnz22 brynnz22 Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Change "omics processing" to "data generation" And change variable (mentioned in comment above too) for omicsprocess_has_input to allude to data generation instead.


Reply via ReviewNB

@samobermiller
Copy link
Collaborator Author

These make sense! I guess in the back of my head I was thinking theyre still technically omics records, but I see thats its confusing cause we query data generation

@brynnz22
Copy link
Contributor

brynnz22 commented Oct 1, 2024

I think Katherine and I must have reviewed at the same time. I had similar comments.

@bmeluch bmeluch changed the base branch from main to berkeley_refactor October 2, 2024 22:26
@bmeluch bmeluch marked this pull request as ready for review October 2, 2024 22:27
@bmeluch bmeluch merged commit 8eb4c49 into berkeley_refactor Oct 2, 2024
2 checks passed
@bmeluch bmeluch deleted the berkeley_nom branch October 2, 2024 22:28
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.

4 participants