griffithlab / griffithlab/civic-docs
Provide guidance for variant names in Evidence Statements
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 5
- Forks
- 9
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
When our EIDs get ported to other resources, the variant name may be disassociated from the evidence statement. Do we care about including the variant name in the statement?
- If it is in the statement, it’s ok if it is separated from other fields
- If we change the variant name or provide aliases and it is removed, this can allow the statement to be out of sync
Repeating the variant name is preferred by the group.
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
No file or test is named. Start by locating the Evidence Statements guidance in the documentation, then document the group's preference to repeat the variant name and explain the synchronization trade-off. Done means the guidance addresses both cases described in the issue.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100