Make metadata public or private on a field-by-field basis

[squirrelo]

Be able to retain all metadata columns, but only release the public ones to EBI, as viewable, etc.

[antgonza]

This is not be needed once we have #203 in place so closing.

[adamrp]

How will having #203 in place fix this?

[squirrelo]

We can have a public and private version of each file.

[adamrp]

But what we discussed today was to have only one sample template associated
with each study in the database, and then have other versions available
only via the filesystem (for posterity). Changing that plan of action,
might require substantial changes, since it introduces a potential
many-to-many relationship between sample templates and prep templates, and
we would need at least one additional table. So this is not resolved by
#203. An alternative way to go might be to add a "public" column to the
study_sample_columns table, and have users specify which columns are public
and which are not upon metadata upload.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Joshua Shorenstein <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

We can have a public and private version of each file.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#186 (comment).

[adamrp]

@antgonza and I just discussed the origin of this issue offline. We agreed that, at least for now, we do not need anything as specialized as what I was describing above. I thought that the reason for wanting the ability to make metadata public/private on a field-by-field basis was that a person might have a study containing private information that they themselves need for their analyses, but that they would not want to make public (e.g., publish to EBI). Although this is a valid use case, the most direct workaround for now is for the individual to create two different studies (with two different sample templates), and process them separately -- not ideal, but will work for now.

[rob-knight]

Fixing this workaround soon is a high priority but I agree it’s not needed for the initial release.

On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, adamrp <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@antgonzahttps://github.com/antgonza and I just discussed the origin of this issue offline. We agreed that, at least for now, we do not need anything as specialized as what I was describing above. I thought that the reason for wanting the ability to make metadata public/private on a field-by-field basis was that a person might have a study containing private information that they themselves need for their analyses, but that they would not want to make public (e.g., publish to EBI). Although this is a valid use case, the most direct workaround for now is for the individual to create two different studies (with two different sample templates), and process them separately -- not ideal, but will work for now.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/186#issuecomment-55926821.

[squirrelo]

This should be pretty quick to implement by adding another column to the study_sample_columns table that is a boolean for public or private, defaulting to public. The user would have to specify what is private on template upload though, which may get annoying from a user perspective.

[adamrp]

Annoying though it might be, I think that's the way to go.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Joshua Shorenstein <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

This should be pretty quick to implement by adding another column to the
study_sample_columns table that is a boolean for public or private,
defaulting to public. The user would have to specify what is private on
template upload though, which may get annoying from a user perspective.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#186 (comment).

[adswafford]

Doesn't look like this was ever implemented, but would be extremely useful for handling PHI when making studies public. Maybe this can be integrated with #2215 since the Metadata Wizard will soon provide a data dictionary alongside sample information?