refactor(backend, website, ingest)!: Improve naming of data at different stages in lifecycle#6629
refactor(backend, website, ingest)!: Improve naming of data at different stages in lifecycle#6629anna-parker wants to merge 9 commits into
Conversation
|
@claude review |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
@claude review |
|
Claude finished @anna-parker's task in 3m 33s —— View job Code Review
SummaryThis is a solid naming cleanup PR that introduces a clear, documented hierarchy ( Issues1.
|
|
Claude finished @anna-parker's task in 3m 12s —— View job Code Review
This is a well-executed rename refactor. The lifecycle naming hierarchy in the PR description ( A few items worth addressing:
The file was renamed and the component/function were updated, but these three things were missed:
|
|
@claude review |
|
Claude finished @anna-parker's task in 2m 54s —— View job Code Review
SummaryGood progress since the previous reviews — most flagged issues have been resolved. The Theo-suggested naming changes ( What was fixed ✅
Remaining Issues1.
|
a4927a7 to
a5f4387
Compare
78479f8 to
c579cfc
Compare
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 452ca84aba
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
corneliusroemer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Found a few remnants of submission instead of submitted
9d6505a to
18eeda6
Compare
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d8f3a87e08
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@claude review very carefully |
|
Claude finished @theosanderson's task in 3m 24s —— View job Code Review
This is a well-executed naming cleanup that introduces a clear, well-documented lifecycle hierarchy. Most of the issues raised in prior reviews are fixed. The migration is structurally sound. I found three remaining issues in a careful pass. Issues1.
|
resolves #
When reviewing #5856 I realized it is quite confusing that we call an endpoint
get-original-databut we actually return data from theunprocessed_datacolumn.Additionally, I noticed that "unprocessed data" is used inconsistently in the code as the mutable copy of the submitted data and the copy of the submitted data plus additional fields such as submitter, time, accession (I introduced this in https://github.com/loculus-project/loculus/pull/6254/changes so my bad!). This is confusing.
I decided it would be best to introduce a consistent naming pattern that is reflected in how the data is called in different stages of its lifecycle but also in the endpoints themselves (let me know what you think about the names I can also change this!)
Screenshot
PR Checklist
🚀 Preview: https://download-submitted-data.loculus.org