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

BF: unique json fields #279

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 5, 2019
Merged

Conversation

yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

@yarikoptic yarikoptic commented Nov 27, 2018

main goal is to fix #277

TODOs

Otherwise it would be inconsistent and populated only with the first run analysis output, so multiple sessions etc would not really get all common values,
deminishing its value.
See nipy#277
@yarikoptic yarikoptic force-pushed the bf-unique-json-fields branch from 89f14bc to 3f0e3d9 Compare November 27, 2018 17:44
yarikoptic added a commit to yarikoptic/bids-specification that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2018
… Inheritance principle

It is often useful to look at the top level task*json files to see what is
"common" among all subjects/sessions.  Listing only the fields with common
values is what we also implemented (albeit incorrectly, fix is pending
nipy/heudiconv#279) in ReproIn.

Upon quick search I also found no "good practice" recommendations in the
spec.  It might be arguable either spec should or should not include them.
I think it should since we already RECOMMEND things.  We of cause could
place recommendations into a separate subsection somewhere but then they
would not be linked to the specific topics and thus would not be attended
to. Hence I placed this one right at the section where it is pertinent
@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

Unfortunately I am not getting much of comments on bids-standard/bids-specification#102 to clear things up

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

I think I will include this as is in upcoming release PR and will keep this one open for tests

@yarikoptic yarikoptic merged commit 3f0e3d9 into nipy:master Jan 5, 2019
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.

incorrectly pulling "the same only" values into the top level .json
2 participants