You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In hop.json, in OilContentType we have a few inconsistencies:
b_pinene represents β-Pinene, but we also have pinene which, presumably, represents α-Pinene. If so, it would be clearer to rename pinene to a_pinene
Member cohumulone is an alpha acid, not an oil, so (a) it should be outside this structure and (b) it should be percentage of alpha acids not percentage of total oils.
I'm not a chemist but AIUI, polyphenols and xanthohumol are not oils, so should also be outside the OilContentType structure. Claude tells me they are usually given as a percentage of hop mass.
Agreed on all three, and the type's own description gives the game away: it says it collects "oil content, polyphenols, and thiols", so two of the three were known not to be oils, and there is no thiol member at all.
Proposal, all additive plus deprecations per ADR-0003, so a minor bump to 3.1 and no existing document breaks:
Change
Where
add a_pinene, deprecate pinene
stays in OilContentType, both are oils
add cohumulone, deprecate the copy in OilContentType
VarietyInformation, described as a percentage of total alpha acids
add polyphenols and xanthohumol, deprecate the copies
VarietyInformation, described as a percentage of hop mass
rewrite the OilContentType description
drop polyphenols and thiols, state that members are a percentage of total oil
VarietyInformation rather than HopVarietyBase because none of the three is needed to calculate a recipe, which is the line ADR-0005 draws. They are three independent measurements rather than a cluster, so I would put them directly on the type rather than invent a wrapper, but say if you would rather group them.
Two things I am leaving alone unless you want them in scope:
total_oil_ml_per_100g bakes its unit into the name and is a bare number rather than a measurement type. That is really #218, and it is the same shape as calories_per_pint.
Thiols. The description implies they belong here and nothing represents them. Adding them is a new proposal rather than a fix, and I do not know which ones matter to brewers (4MMP, 3MH, 3MHA?). Worth a separate issue if you think so.
Activity
ndreno commentedon Oct 13, 2026
Agreed on all three, and the type's own description gives the game away: it says it collects "oil content, polyphenols, and thiols", so two of the three were known not to be oils, and there is no thiol member at all.
Proposal, all additive plus deprecations per ADR-0003, so a minor bump to 3.1 and no existing document breaks:
a_pinene, deprecatepineneOilContentType, both are oilscohumulone, deprecate the copy inOilContentTypeVarietyInformation, described as a percentage of total alpha acidspolyphenolsandxanthohumol, deprecate the copiesVarietyInformation, described as a percentage of hop massOilContentTypedescriptionVarietyInformationrather thanHopVarietyBasebecause none of the three is needed to calculate a recipe, which is the line ADR-0005 draws. They are three independent measurements rather than a cluster, so I would put them directly on the type rather than invent a wrapper, but say if you would rather group them.Two things I am leaving alone unless you want them in scope:
total_oil_ml_per_100gbakes its unit into the name and is a bare number rather than a measurement type. That is really #218, and it is the same shape ascalories_per_pint.Thiols. The description implies they belong here and nothing represents them. Adding them is a new proposal rather than a fix, and I do not know which ones matter to brewers (4MMP, 3MH, 3MHA?). Worth a separate issue if you think so.
Correct four descriptions, and describe every $ref property (#274)