-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Remove required
from yamls and associated functions
#1951
Conversation
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ CheckSpec <- function(lData, lSpec) { | |||
} | |||
# check that required exist in data, if _all required is not specified | |||
if (!isTRUE(lSpec[[strDataFrame]]$`_all`$required)) { |
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.
Keeping required
on _all
?
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.
This makese sense to me - noticed a few unquoted data types. I'm wondering if the _all$required
scenario needs to be reconsidered. It basically just tells ApplySpec
to keep everything, but the specification is a little esoteric. That said, if it works it works.
Mapped_STUDY: | ||
_all: | ||
required: true |
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.
were these meant to be removed? And does it need to be done on:
3_reporting/Bounds.yaml
4_modules/report_kri_country.yaml
4_modules/report_kri_site.yaml
inst/examples/2_AdverseEventWorkflow.R
?
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.
we went back and forth, but for the moment, we are leaving the _all
specs as is, and will handle them later via #1952
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.
Understood, added a commit to remove a couple lines of inst/examples/2_AdverseEventWorkflow.R
where it was last stragglers for not-_all: required
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.
oh nice- thanks for catching that!
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.
LGTM, depending on which PR we merge first, the additional removal of required: true for study yaml will be needed as well
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.
Very thorough 💯
Overview
Remove the required field from yaml specs and assume that all columns specified in the spec are required. Adjusts
checkSpec()
andCombineSpec()
appropriately.Also changes experimental flags to stable for FlagOverTime and report table creation functions
Test Notes/Sample Code
Connected Issues
required
field from specs andcheckSpec()
/CombineSpec()
/Ingest()
#1936