-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
feature/frame_acquisition_times #85
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Cc: @BrianWhitneyAI |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #85 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 86.97% 91.05% +4.07%
==========================================
Files 6 16 +10
Lines 453 1006 +553
==========================================
+ Hits 394 916 +522
- Misses 59 90 +31 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| czi = CziFile(open_resource.f) | ||
| return frame_acquisition_times( | ||
| czi=czi, | ||
| current_scene=self.current_scene_index, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just double checking here, does the index always correlate to the correct scene identification? I remember some issues in different mappings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe so, since similar logic is used in another place. (In both cases, eventually get_coords_from_kwargs is called.)
| ) | ||
| if acquisition_time is None: | ||
| continue | ||
| d = {**subblock_info, "acquisition_time": acquisition_time} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This format definitely needs to be documented, but that is less important in the current draft.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right. This could be transformed into xarray, but not really straightforward without pandas.
| Reader(uri, use_aicspylibczi=True) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @pytest.mark.parametrize( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the test suite needs some work (Understandably less important at this stage). I think that this current test is overly complex for the type of unit testing we would expect. I think that we could have two tests here.
-
A test similar to this one but it makes direct assertions about the output acq time. This should be a test param for readability. I think we do something similar in our other standard metadata tests. We should include at least one param here that is none.
-
A test asserting the difference in values across scene selection
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi, thanks for your comment, I updated the tests!
yfukai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi, thanks for your comment @BrianWhitneyAI, I've updated the code.
We still need to decide on the returning data (list of dict or xarray).
Link to Relevant Issue
This pull request (partly) resolves bioio-devs/bioio#172
Description of Changes
This is a draft implementation for
frame_acquisition_times. Currently, it returns a list of dict asfor the selected scene, but inputs are welcome! (Maybe we should pop "S" from the dict.)