tool widget "buildability" not documented

[mr-c]

What should a tool curator do so that the "compiler" and "automated" entries are mark as fulfilled?

The word "compiler" doesn't have any search hits at http://biotools.readthedocs.io/

Thanks,

[redmitry]

Hello Michael,

As far as I remember there are no this info in the biotools schema...

In the OpenEBench we have some metrics we should fulfill via repositories analysis. The Biotools widget takes these metrics from the OpenEBench.

You can take a look:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zgseqMvSMz4FU_Og6IhGxCnuUzXtZZRP9VfWYQx9914/edit#gid=0 https://openebench.bsc.es/monitor/metrics/metrics.json

I think "compiled" means NOT "distribution.sourcecode.interpreted" property This means that that the language is interpreted rather than compiled. So "C, C++" (C#, Java?) are compiled.

Currently, we are working on the improvement in the development branch https://dev-openebench.bsc.es/monitor/metrics/metrics.json

Kind regards,

D.

On 7/9/2018 8:26 AM, Michael R. Crusoe wrote:

What should a tool curator do so that the "compiler" and "automated" entries are mark as fulfilled?

The word "compiler" doesn't have any search hits at http://biotools.readthedocs.io/

Thanks,

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bio-tools/biotoolsRegistry/issues/344, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGfViGUPBpqsaxDKLTTolL0prUpiH2nfks5uEvejgaJpZM4VHJSl.

[mr-c]

Thank you @redmitry for your response.

If "compiled" is about "distribution.sourcecode.interpreted" then why give a negative "red" cross mark? Is that saying code that needs compiling is of worse quality or less desirable? I hope that was not the intention :-)

Perhaps this part of the widget should be greyed out until it is further developed.

[redmitry]

Hm... that was my guess,

I'd better ask Miguel Madrid (widget author), but this is the only metrics that came to my mind...

D.

On 7/9/2018 9:08 AM, Michael R. Crusoe wrote:

Thank you @redmitry https://github.com/redmitry for your response.

If "compiled" is about "distribution.sourcecode.interpreted" then why give a negative "red" cross mark? Is that saying code that needs compiling is of worse quality or less desirable? I hope that was not the intention :-)

Perhaps this part of the widget should be greyed out until it is further developed.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bio-tools/biotoolsRegistry/issues/344#issuecomment-403381092, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGfViEMtMZRZkEY990uGN0_lUY8o8WBNks5uEwFxgaJpZM4VHJSl.

[joncison]

I'd also suggest the widget (which is very "beta") links back to OpenEBench so a user can find the origin / documentation of the metrics used ...

PS. @mr-c "Buildability" is not in scope of biotoolsSchema - the data is computed by OpenEBench and pulled in via the widget.

[joncison]

closing this: @redmitry please advise @redmitry the repo. where this should be tracked

[redmitry]

Hello, There is a readme in github: https://github.com/inab/elixibilitas/blob/master/doc/metrics.md

the path: "project.summary.description" is a path for the metrics: https://openebench.bsc.es/monitor/metrics/biotools:pymut:2017/cmd/mmb.irbbarcelona.org/project/summary/description

Kind regards,

D.