consistency around non required fields #161
Conversation
meganrm
requested review from
toloudis,
blairlyons,
interim17,
ShrimpCryptid,
frasercl and
ascibisz
and removed request for
a team
| userData: { | ||
| isNew: boolean; | ||
| inReview: boolean; | ||
| totalTaggedStructures: number; | ||
| totalCells: number; | ||
| totalFOVs: number; | ||
| isNew?: boolean; | ||
| inReview?: boolean; | ||
| totalTaggedStructures?: number; | ||
| totalCells?: number; | ||
| totalFOVs?: number; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should userData also be allowed to be undefined?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like a valid question for overall strategy, but the && conditionals that look at the properties of userData in DatasetCard will throw errors if you make this optional now
userData.totalTaggedStructures && <Descrip...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i prefer to not have to check for userData && userData.isNew for example, so I initialized it as an empty object in state. It's not required in the dataset, but it will always be defined at this point in the app
|
LGTM, also curious about Peyton's question above, but I know there is limited bandwidth for maintenance on this app and probably best to touch less code. |
Problem
we want to make sure the schema is consistent with what is truly required to not break the front end. Related to allen-cell-animated/cell-feature-data#92
Solution
Most of these fields were already being treated as non required, but needed to make sure the interface is consistent
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.