-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
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 API for writing HCS metadata #153
Merged
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f16f154
Add new API for writing plate and well metadata
sbesson fab102a
Update node, reader and writer unit tests to cover plate/well specifi…
sbesson 7105153
Specify types for plate dictionary using type annotation
sbesson f468a0a
ome_zarr.format: do not normalize_keys
sbesson d1311aa
Re-enable Ubuntu tests using various Python versions
sbesson 12b341d
Be lenient about unspecified keys in ome_zarr.writer
sbesson ff197a0
Remove unexpected not
sbesson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
The spec has been updated with a "MUST NOT" have other keys? Eventually, that could be problematic. Perhaps the prefix mechanism that @will-moore found in json-schema that leaves them unchecked could eventually be introduced here.
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.
Thanks for picking up on this. I have not found a clear statement regarding the validity of additional keys in the ngff spec. This strict implementation is probably derived from my reading of
multiscales
where I assumemetadata
is the single key that tried to capture extra arguments.That being said, I totally see this MUST NOT interpretation is and will be limiting both for the extension of the specification itself as well as for supporting external metadata not covered by the spec.
The
well
metadata is a perfect example as ome/ngff#24 defines more keys. Assuming someone wanted to write a version 0.3 with these new keys populated, is it legit and desired to let the writer implementation write this metadata? If so, is it worth a logging statement at WARN, INFO or DEBUG level? Or should this writer only care about the keys defined in the spec and ignore anything extra?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 was
salad schema
where you could use aprefix:
to avoid validation, but I think for json-schema you don't need to do that and it won't fail for unrecognised attributes.