taxonomy: ingredient descriptions part 2

[aleene]

What

Reworking the ingredient descriptions: better descriptions/better coverage.

and no comments that swarm around the file.

[Freso]

I think I was about ¾ way through when i noticed it had been updated, so just posting this now, and i'll go back to review the rest later.

Two comments/questions:

1. Is your approach of making …_process properties rather than doing attributes in a manner similar to the ecobase_… properties something that’s been discussed somewhere?
2. I’m not a fan of the usda_…_2:en: …. I think numbering like that is going to be more trouble than it’s worth, but not sure how to deal with this if point 1 is something we’re going with.

I also wish you would keep commits more atomic/narrow-scoped. There’s a number of ingredients being merged here, which seems to go beyond the scope of “ingredient descriptions”.

[Freso]

Okay, I think I managed to review it all now. 😅

[Freso]

Did you forget to push updates, or did you just mark the comments as resolved without actually implementing any of the suggested changes? 😅

[aleene]

I am not convinced accepting changing works always.

[Freso]

Yes, it does indeed not always work, so you might need to apply some of the changes “manually”, locally, and then push those updates here.

[Freso]

There’s still the typo’d “commemt”. I’ve also unresolved all the resolved comments from the previous review that haven’t been addressed.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[aleene]

@Freso should be done now.