RFC-003: skip values

[ericbuckley]

Description

A proposal to introduce system changes allowing users to define skip conditions for placeholder values to be ignored during the linkage process.

Related Issues

closes #215

<--------------------- REMOVE THE LINES BELOW BEFORE MERGING --------------------->

Checklist

Please review and complete the following checklist before submitting your pull request:

• I have ensured that the pull request is of a manageable size, allowing it to be reviewed within a single session.
• I have reviewed my changes to ensure they are clear, concise, and well-documented.
• I have updated the documentation, if applicable.
• I have added or updated test cases to cover my changes, if applicable.
• I have minimized the number of reviewers to include only those essential for the review.

Checklist for Reviewers

Please review and complete the following checklist during the review process:

• The code follows best practices and conventions.
• The changes implement the desired functionality or fix the reported issue.
• The tests cover the new changes and pass successfully.
• Any potential edge cases or error scenarios have been considered.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.80%. Comparing base (f6cc2d2) to head (25018ff).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #218   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.80%   97.80%           
=======================================
  Files          33       33           
  Lines        1731     1731           
=======================================
  Hits         1693     1693           
  Misses         38       38           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[bamader]

I like the approach generally but wanted to flag a possible concern around using NAME rather than jointly considering First and Last. Nothing that's blocker level, but just raising.

[bamader]

Looks good, I think we're there with this!

[ericbuckley]

Moving this to ON HOLD for the time being.