You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current situation where both inputs and outputs are documented within the parameter_meta section can be confusing. I've been told this overloading can be traced back to this issue on the cromwell repo. I would like to see the addition of an output_meta section to the specification. It would function similarly to the current parameter_meta, except only declared outputs would be permitted within.
Since inputs and outputs share a namespace, it could also make sense to keep the current behavior of parameter_meta but rename it to something like declaration_meta. IMO having two separate sections, one for inputs and one for outputs is the cleaner solution which will lead to better documentation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
a-frantz
changed the title
documenting outputs in **parameter**_meta doesn't make sense
documenting outputs in **parameter**_meta isn't clear
Apr 15, 2024
The current situation where both inputs and outputs are documented within the parameter_meta section can be confusing. I've been told this overloading can be traced back to this issue on the cromwell repo. I would like to see the addition of an
output_meta
section to the specification. It would function similarly to the currentparameter_meta
, except only declared outputs would be permitted within.Since inputs and outputs share a namespace, it could also make sense to keep the current behavior of
parameter_meta
but rename it to something likedeclaration_meta
. IMO having two separate sections, one for inputs and one for outputs is the cleaner solution which will lead to better documentation.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: