Open PMassicotte opened 4 years ago
Hi @PMassicotte Thank you for generously picking up my concerns:)
I think the new calculation should be default because it's up-to-date and a more realistic choice. Nowadays EEMs are mostly instrument-bias corrected. Can you please give the old one as a second choice with some explanations and the reference (Cory et al. 2010)?
This is what I have done. Any thoughts @MatthiasPucher ?
I was not aware of that before @MorimaruKida pointed it out. From what I read so far, I consider this being the best way.
Add unit tests to verify the results of the new FI.
Hi Phillippe, I was wondering when this fix might be available/ released to the eemR package? I tried to just copy the corrected code from your commit and to have the function written into my R script but it's not working for what I'm sure is a very obvious reason but troubleshooting that is a little outside my current working knowledge. I also tried downloading the development version of this package to see if the fix was included in that which it appears not to be but please let me know if I'm missing something!
Hi @ETaylor21, I am not sure what is your problem exactly. Have you been able to install the dev version?
Thanks for getting back to me and sorry for not being clearer! I don't necessarily have a problem, what I'm wondering is when the eem_fluorescence_index function will be updated in the main branch of this package to allow users to choose which way their FI is calculated as mentioned above. I had mentioned that I had successfully installed the dev version of this package but as far as I could tell the FI function in the dev version also did not have the option to choose how the FI is calculated yet. I would like to use the 470/520 option as I am working with corrected eem data.
Can you install the branch that allows it? https://github.com/PMassicotte/eemR/tree/fi
From Researchgate: