Jeffrey Carlin, Keith Bechtol I think we have resolved this with the package reorganization?

We resolved the class names and directory structure, but to my knowledge, we have not yet made a decision on conventions for metric names. We had discussed reorganizing the metrics packages.

Discussed at the weekly meeting on 2021_04_13. Consistency was the key driver over any one particular convention. We will follow conventions in the developers guide and prefer CamelCase. The developers guide also allows for new code to be written in snake_case. We chose not to adopt this convention and to stick with CamelCase throughout faro.

I think the core issue to be resolved here is the naming of metrics in the sense that each new metric is currently mapped to a new dataset type in the butler repo. We don't yet have a more systematic way of enforcing what dataset type names are allowed and grouping all the dataset types that correspond to metrics together in some way.

Currently, the naming convention for these metric dataset names includes the verification package (e.g., "metricvalue_validate_drp_PA1"), and we had discussed updating the verification packages to point more clearly to requirements documents for normative metrics.

See discussion on this thread:

https://lsstc.slack.com/archives/C2JPMCF5X/p1619461815052000

and

https://lsstc.slack.com/archives/C2JPMCF5X/p1619462715057900

where Jim and others make some suggestions

Aim for shorter term solution (few month timescale), and follow up with longer term solution.

Another question raised in how to deal with the same metric being computed on different scales (e.g., per tract metric values versus the summary statistic for the whole dataset). These cannot have the same dataset type name in the current approach, and these dataset types have different dimensions.