Conversation
|
Can we add a test for this? I would like to be convinced that this change actually does what we think it does :D |
|
Done! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to revert the style changes to sphinx/conf.py and schema/sssom_datamodel.py. Those aren't relevant for this PR and have until now been explicitly excluded from linting since they're autogenerated. With respect to the other spurious changes caused by black - I can't seem to get black to revert them (has the default style changed?)
|
As |
Agreed. I'm considering adding a PR to linkml to have it auto-blacken the output, though ;) |
matentzn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently the multivalued elements are not handled quite right: This is how
sssom convert tests/data/basic.tsv -o basic.json
spits it out:
{
"subject_id": "x:appendage",
"subject_label": "appendage",
"subject_category": "biolink:AnatomicalEntity",
"predicate_id": "owl:equivalentClass",
"object_id": "y:appendage",
"object_label": "appendages",
"object_category": "biolink:AnatomicalEntity",
"match_type": "['Lexical', 'Stemming']",
"subject_source": "x",
"object_source": "y",
"mapping_tool": "rdf_matcher",
"confidence": 0.840714406,
"subject_match_field": "rdfs:label",
"object_match_field": "rdfs:label",
"match_string": "appendag",
"comment": "."
}
We should
- make sure that both the JSON and RDF serialisations look correct (eyeballing)
- Ensure that the test fails in the current state, and only passes when it really works (i.e. the multivalued values are really converted into lists in the linkml model).
Co-authored-by: Charles Tapley Hoyt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Charles Tapley Hoyt <[email protected]>
|
The one error I get here is form the package rdflib_shim which is apparently used by both it seems like the library |
|
Pinned linkml-runtime to 1.1.10 for the time-being. |
|
I am not diametrically opposed to pinning versions, but we should have at least a new issue "Unpin LinkML version" with a link to the respective LinkML issue? |
|
Looks good: |
|
|
I commented in the issue. Was not able to reproduce issue It's important that if we think we encounter an error there is a reproducible way to test it - I recommend making a PR that fails demonstrating the issue in future |
|
Unpinning the |
Issue #124