Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.93%. Comparing base (3322a40) to head (0bd77dc).

❗ Current head 0bd77dc differs from pull request most recent head 9022fa3. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9022fa3 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1725   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.92%   87.93%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1375     1351   -24     
=======================================
- Hits         1209     1188   -21     
+ Misses        166      163    -3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Probably worth asking for people who voted in #1723 to review.

See HTML template in this section

https://bids-specification--1725.org.readthedocs.build/en/1725/modality-specific-files/magnetic-resonance-imaging-data.html#diffusion-imaging-data

Not really a fan of how this looks, prioritizing the derivatives over the raw, due to sorting:

Split into a separate table. Rerequested reviews, since this is a significant change from before.

I was updating my local code and realized that _FA.nii[.gz] is not in the list. Are there any reasons for that? (also what the scanner generates)

One small suggestion in the phrasing -- maybe it is worth avoiding using 'derivatives' to avoid confusion?

scanner-generated derivatives --> scanner-generated images
such volumes SHOULD be derived from that series --> such volumes SHOULD be computed from that series

I was updating my local code and realized that _FA.nii[.gz] is not in the list. Are there any reasons for that? (also what the scanner generates)

It wasn't part of the prior discussion. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to reserve that for a new PR than change this one last-minute.