[Bug]: Info message for new values in open enumerations

[CMM02]

Contact Details

magnus.meier@helmholtz-berlin.de

What happened?

When validating a NeXus file with validate_nexus, which has a new item for an enumeration and the @custom=True attribute is set, the follow message is output (example: energy_scan_mode in NXenergydispersion):

The value at /entry/instrument/electronanalyzer/dispersion/energy_scan_mode does not match with the enumerated items from the open enumeration: ['fixed_analyzer_transmission', 'fixed_retardation_ratio', 'fixed_energy', 'snapshot', 'dither'].

The log should only appear, when @custom=True is not set. Ideally if this is missing, it should state that this needs to be added for custom values.

Relevant log output

[lukaspie]

Thanks for the issue. Is this just a duplicate of #666? We have a PR already to address this, so should be solved fairly soon: #669

[lukaspie]

@CMM02 this should be fixed now in the master branch, can you please check that it works?

[lukaspie]

@CMM02 we'll close here as this is solved, please reopen if needed.

[CMM02]

Hi @lukaspie , yes this was a duplicate of #666 and seems to be resolved. I only find the the info message a little misleading, since it's identical to the warning message without the prompt to add the @custom field. Is this info log needed in the first place? And if so, maybe it should be altered to something like:

Custom value 'xxx' detected for open enumeration at /entry/xxx/.../xxx, which consists of enumeration items ['xxx',...,'xxx'].

But as the validation is successful, I don't think this is of high importance.

[lukaspie]

Great that it works now.

The reason we still have an info message is that we want to warn users in case of typos. Moreover, we want to encourage users to use the existing enumeration items because if you use custom values, you go away from the standardization. Rather, users are encouraged to contribute to the enumeration in the standard in case they have terms that could be used in many other experiments as well. So, we still log an info-level message.

I like your suggested change, I will implement that soon.