Related: T1506
Rendered view:
Details
Details
- Reviewers
zack moranegg ardumont - Group Reviewers
Reviewers - Commits
- rDCIDX711a2d9f463a: Apply @zack 's comments.
rDCIDX7b323c6e7c21: Document how to write a metadata mapping.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rDCIDX Metadata indexer
- Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable. - Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Build is green
See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/512/ for more details.
| docs/metadata-workflow.rst | ||
|---|---|---|
| 200 | Maybe mentioning somewhere the mapping should be tested (prior to opening a diff ;). | |
Comment Actions
I've nitpicked only about section naming/intro and some style, the rest LGTM.
| docs/metadata-workflow.rst | ||
|---|---|---|
| 123 | Please use a different expression here than "mapping". As we have discussed in the past, it's an implementation detail, not related to the goal that readers of this section will try to achieve. A concrete suggestion is "Add support for additional ecosystem-specific metadata". ("Ecosystem" is an attempt at being more general than "language" or "package manager", YMMV.) Similarly, adapting the description to mention "mapping" only when it's really needed would be nice. | |
| 127 | I don't think this comment belongs there, a developer setup is a prerequisite and we don't want to have to mention it in every single piece of documentation we write. | |
| 129 | this anchor looks a bit fragile, maybe just use CodeMeta crosswalks instead ? | |
| 130 | s/^Create/Then create/ | |
| 148 | Link to the actual implementation of the PKG-INFO mapping here, so that people can compare the pseudo-code in this section with a real implementation. | |
| 200 | rather: "when it finds a license field in content_dict." | |
Comment Actions
Build is green
See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/514/ for more details.