-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
Add id field
#646
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 id field
#646
Conversation
I think it would often be convenient to have some ID for a given PEtab problem and I would like to add such a field to the yaml schema. Previously, we usually used the model ID in such situations. However, often we have multiple problems based on the same model but different datasets, and this doesn't work well in the case of multiple models. Not sure whether it should be mandatory or optional. I think, I'd go for optional.
fbergmann
left a comment
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'm fine with an id field. I'd prefer to have it optional.
dilpath
left a comment
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.
Fine for me as either optional or required. Some documentation for it should be added to the spec.
matthiaskoenig
left a comment
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.
In favor of adding an id.
I will have many problems were I will have a multitude of PETab problems and subproblems. Having an id would make it much easier to work with these.
Personally I would like to have this required.
|
Thanks for the feedback. Let's briefly discuss optional/mandatory during the next editor's meeting. Maybe also whether we want some additional annotation fields in the yaml file, like |
Outcome:
|
* Update schema * v2.Problem.id * v2.ProblemConfig.id Related to PEtab-dev/PEtab#646. Closes PEtab-dev#441.
* Update schema * v2.Problem.id * v2.ProblemConfig.id Related to PEtab-dev/PEtab#646. Closes PEtab-dev#441.
* Update schema * v2.Problem.id * v2.ProblemConfig.id Related to PEtab-dev/PEtab#646. Closes #441.
I think it would often be convenient to have some ID for a given PEtab problem and I would like to add such a field to the yaml schema. Previously, we usually used the model ID in such situations. However, often we have multiple problems based on the same model but different datasets, and this doesn't work well in the case of multiple models.
Not sure whether it should be mandatory or optional. I think, I'd go for optional.