Modifications for nomad meta-info underlining function change

[RubelMozumder]

With the new implementation nomad meta-info, the annotation is expected to be in a list; otherwise, it would get an error:

[lukaspie]

Can you please elaborate why this change is needed and what it is doing? Hard to understand otherwise.

[mkuehbach]

ongoing work

[mkuehbach]

With the new implementation nomad meta-info

Please provide context e.g. nomad-FAIR or gh commit where this was introduced by

the annotation is expected

Which specific annotation?

[RubelMozumder]

Can you please elaborate on why this change is needed and what it is doing? Hard to understand otherwise.

Currently, m_annotation.get or m_annotation_get returns a list, not an object. But, in both cases, we define a default unit which is None. These changes are needed due to some modifications injected by @TLCFEM. He can better give context on modification, what type of modifications he and the corresponding GH commit.

[RubelMozumder]

With the new implementation nomad meta-info

Please provide context e.g. nomad-FAIR or gh commit where this was introduced by

CC @TLCFEM

the annotation is expected

Which specific annotation?

[RubelMozumder]

Can you please elaborate on why this change is needed and what it is doing? Hard to understand otherwise.

Currently, m_annotation.get or m_annotation_get returns a list, not an object. But, in both cases, we define a default unit which is None. These changes are needed due to some modifications injected by @TLCFEM. He can better give context on modification, what type of modifications he and the corresponding GH commit.

Alternatively, we can use also

default_display_unit = quantity_def.m_annotations.get(
  eln", [None] 
  0].defaultDisplayUnit

This is Okay.

[TLCFEM]

Directly using quantity_def.m_annotations.get is not safe as quantity_def.m_annotations may store an annotation or a list of annotations.

The change made is more robust and safer.