[24.1] Fill in missing help for cross product tools. #18698
Conversation
|
Update: Deleted dated screenshots. |
jmchilton
force-pushed
the
241_crossproduct_help
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0c3e51e
to
2873f70
Compare
jmchilton
changed the title
| What this tool does (technical details) | ||
| ============================================ | ||
|
|
||
| This tool consumes two lists - we will call them ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would call those input A and B. And the lists a_1,...a_n and b_1,...,b_m.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bernt-matthias The text doesn't refer to the inputs at all, I don't think we need to name them.
I would perhaps just say
| This tool consumes two lists - we will call them ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` | |
| This tool consumes two flat lists. We will call the input collections ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then, why is it called input_a?
My main point would be not to use indices (with underscores) here (and instead use it for the list elements).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because it's input collection a and input collection b ? I don't get the point about underscores.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's my expectation from the more formal/mathematical papers I encountered. With underscores I expect elements of a list.
That is, my preference would be underscores for the lists and no underscores for the two inputs.
In the end I don't care that much. Formally it's well defined and fine. Just a bit more pleasant for me 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a math background and not having the underscores physically pains me to look at 😆 - I think I did it anyway because I wanted them to seem like Galaxy dataset an actual bench scientist would have and not like mathematical concepts.
| This matching up of elements is a very natural way to "map" an operation (or in Galaxy parlance, a tool) | ||
| over two lists. However, sometimes the desire is to compare each element of the first list to each element of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This matching up of elements is a very natural way to "map" an operation (or in Galaxy parlance, a tool) | |
| over two lists. However, sometimes the desire is to compare each element of the first list to each element of the | |
| This matching up of elements is a very natural way to perform a "map over" operation, which in Galaxy means to map an operation over the elements of multiple lists. However, sometimes the desire is to compare each element of the first list to each element of the |
I think I would want to establish the term "map over" (and quote it) since that's what (I think) we use when we're talking about these operations. It has probably entered the conversation in chats and the help forum at this point.
Feel free to dismiss this though, it's great that we finally put it into writing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have opened a PR that I think would enable us to do this well in dev #18722.
| What this tool does (technical details) | ||
| ============================================ | ||
|
|
||
| This tool consumes two lists - we will call them ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bernt-matthias The text doesn't refer to the inputs at all, I don't think we need to name them.
I would perhaps just say
| This tool consumes two lists - we will call them ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` | |
| This tool consumes two flat lists. We will call the input collections ``input_a`` and ``input_b``. If ``input_a`` |
jmchilton
force-pushed
the
241_crossproduct_help
branch
from
2873f70
to
72baf52
Compare
|
This PR was merged without a "kind/" label, please correct. |
How to test the changes?
(Select all options that apply)
License