Conversation
… into idc_v24 # Conflicts: # bq/generate_tables_and_views/auxiliary_metadata_table/schema.py # bq/generate_tables_and_views/original_collections_metadata/schema.py
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't we agree to call this "collection_title" for consistency? Also, I would prefer to follow the convention of no-caps and underscore separator for all column names that are outside of DICOM, and CamelCase for those in DICOM. I do understand that capitalization is cosmetic and not recognized in SQL, but I think these conventions help with readability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
collection_title brings up analysis_results_metadata, which also has ID and Title columns. You suggested analysis_collection_id, analysis_collection_title, and analysis_collection_name. I will add the analysis_results_metadata to the PR with those changes.
I'll take out the camels.
With respect to lower-casing where there is CamelCase, e.g. Subjects to subjects, I cannot deprecate the upper case version since BQ will regard the upper case and lower case column names as being the same. Just pointing this out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just rename it to lower-case, since as you said this will have zero effect on the queries?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's what I was trying to say.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The sources_of_original_data[ID] should probably be sources_of_original_data[collection_name], and
related_analysis_results[ID] should be related_analysis_results[analysis_collection_name]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we never use [collection|analysis_result]_name for references - I think those should be [collection|analysis_result]_id.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above - I would suggest "cancer_types".
| bigquery.SchemaField('Species', 'STRING', mode='REQUIRED', description="Species of collection subjects"), | ||
| bigquery.SchemaField( | ||
| "Sources", | ||
| "Sources_of_original_data", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am confused about the name. "sources_of_original_data", but then the record says "original or analysis results"? Why not keep "sources" as originally?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a bug. I'll correct the description. Thanks.
2 participants
No description provided.