camelCase vs snake_case
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 171
- Forks
- 75
- Avg merge
- 2d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 20
Description
I know this has been discussed in the past: #54 #70 #109. But I find the inconsitency quite annoying that Zarr uses snake_case and OME-Zarr uses camelCase. In the past this has not been a huge issue, because the Zarr metadata was in .zarray and .zgroup and the OME-Zarr metadata was in .zattrs. But with Zarr 3/OME-Zarr 0.5 both are in the same file and now it just feels messy.
I would advocate switching to snake_case for OME-Zarr. I know this might not be a high priority and doesn't add any features, but would be a good cleanup before 1.0.
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 reviewing the prior discussions in issues #54, #70, and #109, then compare the Zarr 3 and OME-Zarr 0.5 metadata naming conventions. Identify the affected camelCase fields and assess compatibility implications; done means the specification has an agreed, consistently documented naming convention.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100