Relax docstrings

[pauladkisson]

Fixes #17

[h-mayorquin]

I did not see this before. Left some comments.

[h-mayorquin]

Shouldn't be this on the roiextractors repo?

[pauladkisson]

It's easier to test that the action works properly when it's on the same repo.

[h-mayorquin]

I don't understand, so why not have the neuroconv one here as well?

I thought that the point of having the action here instead of the repos was so we could re-use them across the organization.

[CodyCBakerPhD]

The action is what is centralized in catalystneuro/.github

The workflows are what calls that action

The workflows here are 'tests' or 'demos' of the actions here for debugging purposes

We could theoretically add 'neuroconv' here as an extra 'test case'

But the actual workflows used to assess PRs should live on their respective repos (b/c no other way to add to PR requirements, show up on repo dashboards, etc)

[h-mayorquin]

The workflows here are 'tests' or 'demos' of the actions here for debugging purposes

OK. I did not get that it was meant to be a test of the action from @pauladkisson response above. I think the test could be simpler (like using a simpler repo where the failures would make sense to someone that is not familiar with roiextractors) though but that's probably too much work.

[CodyCBakerPhD]

It's true, a dedicated test repo with simple demo cases and documentation of expected results would be nice

But you are correct it would take some effort

[h-mayorquin]

This looks good to me.

Some finall suggestions to update the actions that we rely on, documentation and to change the test to use relative paths so we can test the local commit.

[pauladkisson]

Some final suggestions to update the actions that we rely on, documentation and to change the test to use relative paths so we can test the local commit.

Done!

[h-mayorquin]

LGTM.