Allow packages with no logo

[gtca]

no_icon = true can now be added to the package information to render them appropriately on the main page.

Package names can also be capitalized now as their names will be converted to lowercase to fetch the correct icon files based on the package name.
Though I think all-lowercase is something we should keep, maybe in the case of snapatac2 vs SnapATAC2 it is a bit too much.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for jade-cajeta-1bcca0 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c1a26ee
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/jade-cajeta-1bcca0/deploys/6876aae51cabad0008cd9a1e
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-171--jade-cajeta-1bcca0.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[maltekuehl]

Citing from the Zen of Python, even though this is a different language: "Explicit is better than implicit". I am not sure that having a no_icon is the best solution, as it still hides where the icons for the other packages come from. Imo, the code would be more explicit and understandable if instead icons (e.g., their paths, if that is not possible, a flag) were always defined. Then the no icon case could become icon = null, with a shared attribute for all packages and no "magic" behind the scences.

[maltekuehl]

This would also make for a more flexible setup. E.g., with the current code with {lower .name}, what would happen if the name itself contains a forward slash? Ofc, impact is likely low in this very limited context in this small website package, just if you are changing it already might be something worth considering.

[Zethson]

Thank you! I would have sworn that I had used the scverse logo also on the main page for SnapATAC2. But uhm apparently not?

If we don't show a logo, we have an inconsistency because on https://scverse.org/packages/#core-packages we show the scverse logo for SnapATAC2. I had wanted to do the same for the main page.
I don't have a strong opinion on this but I totally trust Malte and would encourage you to consider what he says.

Thank you @gtca !

[gtca]

I think explicit logo paths is the way to go, and it is the thing for the packages page. (It is an implicit link to the filename pkgname.svg on the main page.)

Thanks both for your comments!

[flying-sheep]

I like when there’s one source of truth and it’s impossible to e.g. both specify no_icon and have the icon file exist.

But I also think that the presence of a file is an explicit thing, not an implicit one.

If we want locality, we could maybe have one folder per package with both logo and metadata inside, and deleting or adding a folder would remove or add a package. But idk if Hugo supports globbing like that.