Better encapsulation of record metadata
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Jupyter Notebook
- Stars
- 853
- Forks
- 322
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Right now we have the Record class with a huge number of attributes in the top level object. These attributes are varied, fall into many categories, and become very hard to keep track of.
I also find it rather awkward that there is no separate 'header' or 'metadata' type of object. ie. rdheader and rdrecord both return the same type of object.
Initial idea:
RecordInfoclass for storing all the header data. Includes record and signal specification fields, and comments.rdheaderwill create this type.- Same
Recordclass for WFDB records. Theinfoattribute will be aRecordInfoobject.
Having the top level p_signal, d_signal attributes is not my favorite, but I feel like it's rather pointless to have another object to capture these fields.
Open to suggestions.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the existing Record class and the rdheader and rdrecord entry points named in the issue, mapping which top-level attributes represent header, signal specification, and comment data. Define the intended RecordInfo boundary and check how callers use these attributes; done means the encapsulation proposal is consistent and its effects on both returned object types are documented.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100