[MISC] Generalize rules that labels must be used consistently

[Remi-Gau]

• relates to #1314

[Remi-Gau]

Something I am not sure about:

• no idea how to validate for this
• this rule may be too restrictive

For example if we have 2 anat files

• sub-01_acq-highRes_T1w.nii
• sub-01_acq-highRes_T2w.nii

It may be the case that highRes refers to different things for those different types of suffixes.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 87.79%. Comparing base (1cb92eb) to head (fe5397b).

:exclamation: Current head fe5397b differs from pull request most recent head b165609. Consider uploading reports for the commit b165609 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1328   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.79%   87.79%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1360     1360           
=======================================
  Hits         1194     1194           
  Misses        166      166           

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Remi-Gau]

Probably a PR to revisit early 2024

[Remi-Gau]

I stand by my point in #1328 (review) (require labels to be consistent throughout the dataset, rather than only modalities) ... BUT I think the present changes are more in the spirit of the current spec, and thus I deem this PR mergeable as a nice "refactoring".

Updated to have consistency across datatypes too.

(Note: not sure if the [ENH] is fitting, therefore ... maybe [MISC]?)

Done

[effigies]

I overall approve of the centralization and the spirit of this, but this can lead to a problem:

1. Validation of this would be computationally painful, even if it were well defined. However, without metadata tags tied to each entity, how would we validate this?
2. If a tool reads this "MUST", assumes it means something is validated and can be depended on, and decides to optimize by not rereading metadata it thinks it knows, you could end up with invalid processing.

[Remi-Gau]

Yeah I was not sure when rereading this about the MUST and also I had my doubt about to even validate this.

Maybe less constraining: turning this into an admonition to tell users they should be careful about consistency (so no SHOULD or MAY but try to bring attention to this in general).

[effigies]

Maybe less constraining: turning this into an admonition to tell users they should be careful about consistency (so no SHOULD or MAY but try to bring attention to this in general).

Rereading this after a couple months (looking through the 1.10.0 milestone), I think I agree with this.