Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Consistency Review]: Use consistent casing for the word decimal #531

Open
udam-f2 opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

[Consistency Review]: Use consistent casing for the word decimal #531

udam-f2 opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
@mike-finopsorg @udam-f2
Labels
consistency/review Consistency Review needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward spec revision Revise existing definition to be clearer or more accurate

Comments

@udam-f2
Copy link
Contributor

udam-f2 commented Aug 27, 2024

Description

There are lots of places where we seem to be mixing up casing for the word decimal.
"This column MUST be a Decimal within the range of non-negative decimal values,"

Proposed Approach

It seems it should just use standard casing (only upper case if it's the first word e.g. in the constraint table).

GitHub Issue or Reference

No response

Context

No response

Data Submission for Discussion

No response
@udam-f2 udam-f2 added the discussion topic Item or question to be discussed by the community label Aug 27, 2024
@jpradocueva jpradocueva added this to the v1.1 milestone Sep 25, 2024
@jpradocueva jpradocueva added the consistency/review Consistency Review label Sep 26, 2024
@jpradocueva jpradocueva linked a pull request Sep 26, 2024 that will close this issue
Language inconsistency fixes #560
Closed
@udam-f2 udam-f2 removed this from the v1.1 milestone Sep 26, 2024
@shawnalpay shawnalpay removed the discussion topic Item or question to be discussed by the community label Oct 1, 2024
@shawnalpay shawnalpay added spec revision Revise existing definition to be clearer or more accurate needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward labels Oct 10, 2024
@jpradocueva
Copy link
Contributor

@udam-f2, the PR #531 related to this Issue was closed after a call, but the issue was moved to milestone v1.2 and is still open. Can we close this issue? Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mike-finopsorg mike-finopsorg

@udam-f2 udam-f2

Labels
consistency/review Consistency Review needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward spec revision Revise existing definition to be clearer or more accurate
Projects
FOCUS WG
Status: R&A
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Language inconsistency fixes FinOps-Open-Cost-and-Usage-Spec/FOCUS_Spec
4 participants
@jpradocueva @shawnalpay @mike-finopsorg @udam-f2