Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RF: progress bids-validator 1.2.3 #1583

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 17, 2019

Conversation

yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@effigies effigies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inclined to say we should generally try to match the most recent validator, otherwise we're fragmenting the idea of validation. But, just to check, @rwblair are there any changes to the validator since 1.1.3 that might cause problems, or is it all improvements?

@oesteban oesteban requested a review from rwblair April 17, 2019 19:05
@oesteban
Copy link
Member

Asking review for @rwblair to weigh in

@rwblair
Copy link
Contributor

rwblair commented Apr 17, 2019

Looking at the change logs there hasn't been any major changes. the 1.1 to 1.2 rollover was for keeping revision numbers low.

@oesteban @effigies From now on when I publish a new version of the validator you want me to go ahead and open a PR for fmriprep to bump the version?

@effigies
Copy link
Member

@rwblair I think that would be good. Does the validator output its version, by the way? That might be a useful thing when getting reports to quickly tell if the problem is likely just an out-of-date validator.

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor Author

Does the validator output its version, by the way?

possibly related: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-validator/issues/602

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants