Checklist: NiWrap

[birajstha]

Checklist content

{
  "name": "NiWrap",
  "urls": [
    {
      "url_type": "Landing page",
      "url": "https://github.com/childmindresearch/niwrap"
    },
    {
      "url_type": "Documentation",
      "url": "https://childmindresearch.github.io/niwrap/niwrap.html"
    },
    {
      "url_type": "Source code",
      "url": "https://github.com/childmindresearch/niwrap"
    }
  ],
  "documentation": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": true,
      "7": true,
      "8": true,
      "9": true
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": true
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": true,
      "2": false,
      "3": false,
      "4": true,
      "5": false,
      "6": false
    }
  },
  "infrastructure": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": false,
      "7": true
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": false,
      "4": false,
      "5": false
    }
  },
  "testing": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": false,
      "2": false
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": false
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": false,
      "2": false
    }
  }
}

Additional information

No response

Agreement

• I agree

[LuciMoore]

@kaitj the team reviewed this tool and had the following notes. I updated the json at the top based on this feedback and copied the original below. Please review and approve when you're ready!

Documentation discrepancies:

• continuous integration badge for build status exists in the README w/in python subdirectory but not landing page README, but switched to "true" regardless
• we felt like styxbook had complete documentation on functions, classes, modules, etc. where we looked so marked that as "true"
• switched "Has documented style guide" to "false"; didn't come across one
• Maintenance status isn't documented, so switched to false
• Additional suggestion: the background/significance of program could be expanded upon for accessibility (e.g. people new to neuroimaging might not understand why this utility is important)

Infrastructure discrepancies:

• no explicit DOI for NiWrap itself so switched that to "false"
• no documentation on contributing to NiWrap or Styx compiler available even though the pages exist on the styxbook (the contents are empty), so switched this to "false" (it says here that this section is a work in progress)
• no Code of Conduct present so switched this to "false"

Original json:

{
  "name": "NiWrap",
  "urls": [
    {
      "url_type": "Landing page",
      "url": "https://github.com/childmindresearch/niwrap"
    }
  ],
  "documentation": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": true,
      "7": true,
      "8": true,
      "9": true
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": true
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": false,
      "2": false,
      "3": false,
      "4": false,
      "5": true,
      "6": true
    }
  },
  "infrastructure": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true,
      "4": true,
      "5": true,
      "6": true,
      "7": true
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": true
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": true,
      "2": true,
      "3": false,
      "4": true,
      "5": true
    }
  },
  "testing": {
    "bronze": {
      "1": false,
      "2": false
    },
    "silver": {
      "1": true,
      "2": false
    },
    "gold": {
      "1": false,
      "2": false
    }
  }
}

[LuciMoore]

@kaitj actually can you explain more about what qualifies for "Maintenance status is documented?" I assumed it meant that there is a description of how long issues typically take to get resolved, etc, but can this item also be checked if it's clear that issues are being actively responded to?

[kaitj]

Your assumption is spot-on - ideally this should be included. It would give a user an idea of response times and the status of the tool (e.g. if it is no longer maintained / deprecated).

[LuciMoore]

@kaitj gotcha. ok I'll leave that item marked as false then. I'll let you approve this one in case the developers want to address any issues first