Jeff Tratner

@jkimbo - totally agree that it’s wordy 😂😅 I was trying to follow the existing convention. Honestly if I were designing this class from the start I prob would have...

What about getting rid of the automatic output fields in a backwards compatible way: 1. `only_fields` and `exclude_fields` keep the existing behavior (and warns about deprecation) 2. No fields specified...

Our app (for good or ill) has a number of forms that are pretty-close-but-not-quite ModelForms. (So they essentially construct objects, just the input is different than underlying DB representation). This...

(See #933 for a simplifies version of our use case)

@jkimbo - circling back to this after a while :) Has your API break completed now? (I _think_ that was a blocker in the past). If so, is there a...

(pushed PR with example in #934 :) )

First, we should rewrite @nh13 's example to be clearer: ``` ... type Fastq = File type Fasta = File ... task bwa { input { Fastq read1 Fastq read2...

Thanks for the response! > I am not sure how you are generating the upstream information, but would it be possible to use a struct to encapsulate all of the...

I think this would really help adoption. Right now, using s2i means waiting for a really slow build vs. a Dockerfile where requirements.txt would be cached.

Even if you don't want to do a wholesale refactoring, just providing a set of types for responses would be super helpful. (I'm assuming there's some of specification that is...