Sam Powell
Sam Powell
@bartslinger, thanks, that makes sense. The blog is great, well done on the award!
@sstucker thank you for tackling this, the proposed changes capture the proposed changes. Is some more general opening explanatory text required to explain the two options?
Issue #103 is still a problem and this solution is a sane way to handle it. I will return to this before the end of the year.
This is an old issue but it remains pertinent and it would be nice to get this merged. Other than resolving the review comments, what needs to be done (beyond...
@sstucker thank you for any help, much appreciated! Could you clarify where the NaN value situation may arise? What required fields do you envisaged being omitted in practice?
Following discussion in May 24 meeting, it was decided that this feature should be implemented as described. The issue regarding missing fields, which can arise when e.g. both processed and...
Okay, I've addressed one of David's comments, merged master and updated the spell check. Before proceeding, what do you think of @dboas question "for all the places in this chunk...
Further to meeting of 10/07 it was determined that it would be good to include the text "required if measurementLists is present" in order to ensure the spec is literal,...
I'd like to get #151 merged first, then we can remove the same fields in this PR too. If anyone able to review the same we can make progress.
@sreekanthkura7 you should now be able to push commits to this PR