Closed thetorpedodog closed 1 year ago
Question: is the [lifecycle: whatever]
supposed to be machine parsable? I.e., does the format matter, or just the human-readable content?
With the disclaimer that this is just my opinion: I expect it to be only human-readable. If we want to have a machine-parseable version of the lifecycle (which seems like a niche use case), I would have it in a function attribute (maybe set .soma_lifecycle
in a decorator) rather than the docstring, something like:
from . import lifecycle
@lifecycle.experimental
def some_func(...):
...
some_func.soma_lifecycle
# -> experimental
I expect it to be only human-readable.
Given this, I also prefer your proposed style (i.e., a new stanza), placed at the end of the docstring. We should update both packages if we go this route.
I completely agree re human-readable, and that if we want programmatic access we could do a soma_lifecycle()
or somesuch,
This also expands the docstrings for Experiment and Measurement.
In this change, I also changed the format of maturity levels to make them look like just another docs stanza. If we don’t like it, it can be reverted to the
[lifecycle: whatever]
style.Part of https://github.com/single-cell-data/TileDB-SOMA/issues/974.