Closed lukaspie closed 3 months ago
@rettigl @domna please have a look here for the naming changes back to MPES instead of photoemission. Then we can finally merge #74 afterwards.
It looks mostly okay to me, but honestly is too large to completely review. If we merge this into the other branch, the comparison of this with the fairmat branch should be much smaller, as most changes are indeed already there, no?
Not necessarily because we already merged several PRs into the other branch. But, they were already reviewed, so we don't need to do it again. What will be easier to compare is NXmpes
itself. Here, it is very hard to see because we had the renaming to photoemssion in between.
I made an own PR for these changes so that we can see that we are not breaking/missing anything.
As suggested by @rettigl, this reverts all name changes from mpes to photoemission, so that in the end, we have the old structure again:
The
energy
axis remains required as discussed. I have made all energy resolutions and calibrations optional, should we at least make the resolutions recommended if we require theenergy
axis?