Add option to read in template information from a separate external file

[pk-mitre]

Currently ROBOT template files as described here have to include the template strings for each column as the second line in the input template file.
An option to add the ability to read the template string definitions from a separate file would allow for a more flexible pipeline where the template strings can be separately created and input via a file.
A usage example would be
robot template --template animals_ext_template.tsv \
--ext-template animals_template.tsv \
--output results/animals_ext_template.owl

[matentzn]

I would love that.. The name you suggest is not expressive enough yet, but we can work on that. There is also the option (which is more along the lines of the notion of template) to go with --template animals_template.tsv --template-data animals_ext_template.tsv, so, factorting the data out into a separate parameter rather than the template.

@pk-mitre I see you are already working on a PR! Awesome!

[pk-mitre]

Nico:Thanks for your reply. The PR I submitted has an implementation of the external template data concept. I can make any changes to incorporate your refinements and suggestions.Thanks again. Pramod 

[jamesaoverton]

I agree that this is a good idea, and a first glance at your branch looks good. Please open a Pull Request and we'll review it.

[pk-mitre]

I have opened a pull request :pk-mitre#1 Thanks !Pramod 

[jamesaoverton]

You created a fork of this repository, and you created a PR on your fork pk-mitre#1, but that's not what I mean.

It would be helpful if you can open a PR on this repository, so that it shows up in our list of PRs here https://github.com/ontodev/robot/pulls. Here is the GitHub documentation on that https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests. If you have trouble, let us know and we can help.

Much appreciated!

[matentzn]

Before we move to the PR, lets first agree on the whether the data or the template part should be factored out into a separate variable.

👍: --template template_header.tsv --template-data template_data.tsv
🎉 :--template template_data.tsv --template-header template_header.tsv

[pk-mitre]

Sorry about that.. I’ve created a new pull request that shows up on the correct repo. Thanks. Pramod

[pk-mitre]

For the use case we have here, we’d needed the template portion of the template file, i.e the second line as per the template file description here http://robot.obolibrary.org/template Each template file must be set up in the following format:Headers: ROBOT expects the first row to contain column names for every column used in the data. These are used to make error messages more helpful.Templates: ROBOT expects the second row to contain template strings for each column that will be used in the OWL conversion. See below for details on template strings.Data: ROBOT expects each of the remaining rows to correspond to a term (a class, property, or individual).We had the template strings in a second file that had to be merged into the Header & Data  information file that was generated by another system. Pramod

[jamesaoverton]

👍: --template template_header.tsv --template-data template_data.tsv

How will this first option be backwards compatible?

🎉 :--template template_data.tsv --template-header template_header.tsv

This second option seems safer to me.

[matentzn]

How will this first option be backwards compatible?

I think they both can be made backwards compatible, and both have their own issues in that.

If we go with the first option, where the rows that contain the template strings are in the --template option, we don't need to write any template parsing coat for the --template-data option (because we just append its contents under the table parsed by --template). If we go with option two, in order to be backwards compatible, we will have to write template handling code for the --template and --template-data: --template to be backwards compatible, and --template-data to be forwards compatible.

I think with option 2, the only thing that needs to change in the code is to add a single line that appends the data provided by --template-data to the base template --template. It even continues to be allowed to have actual template data in --template - we don't change its definition at all!

[jamesaoverton]

With the current version of ROBOT, you can always manipulate your input tables before ROBOT sees them to add template strings or whatever. Call this the "default approach". I tend to use standard head and tail commands and shell pipes for this. If ROBOT sees a problem with the file, it will report the correct row numbers for the input that it saw, and the user can figure it out.

If we want ROBOT to support fancier template inputs, that feature needs to be better than the default approach. When there is a problem with the template(s), ROBOT needs to tell the user which file, row, and column to look at. The current PR will mess up those error reports, which makes it (in my opinion) worse than the default approach. I'm worried that doing better than the default will require deeper changes to the code than we want to make.

[dlutz2]

If we can live with the restriction that a single Template command line run uses either the current template-in-2nd-row or the external-template-file approach for all incoming data (doesn't mix approaches), I believe the only change necessary to resolve the off-by-one in the error reporting would be to set Template.rowNum =2 (when using the current approach as currently coded) or rowNum=1 (when using external template approach). This starting offset would be set in TemplateOperations.template() when creating the template and using OptionsHelper to determine which templating approach was being used.
Am I missing something?