Hi,

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:34:13 +0100
Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
 
> I think it might be good to do something, just to narrow the scope.
> The outputs binding is valid for the whole let*, and all the code in
> it, but is only used on three lines, in one single place. Maybe there
> could be a let there that just defines outputs (maybe named
> output-groups so you can use the outputs binding for the overall
> thing).

I did it.
 
> That's a good question, I'd look at the database schema, assuming the
> type of the field is a boolean, the question is whether the field is
> nullable?

I looked on the database schema, and the "recursive" field is not
nullable, and it is a boolean, so the test I'm doing is working for
this.
 
> Hmm, I'm not sure why that is on the HTML page, but I'd generally try
> and keep most bits in the JSON, since it's not as helpful to omit bits
> if they're not that important.

I added the "common" field for inputs.
> 
> One other thing I noticed is that the alist for the args is being
> picked apart then reconstructed. Like for the inputs, outputs and
> sources, I'd map over the arguments alist and transform it to the way
> you want it to be.

This part was a bit more complicated for me to understand. You mean I
should build a function similar to outputs, inputs and sources to map
the arguments, wouldn't it be a lot just to show a vector?

-- 
Best Regards,

Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science