Closed remiadon closed 3 years ago
Great! Thanks!
Happy to merge this! Just one thing: @remiadon do you know why the spm test is failing?
@cmaumet just fixed the SPM test
Here is the line that caused the bug
matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.des.t1.scans = {
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-01/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-02/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-03/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-04/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-05/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-06/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-07/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-08/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-09/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-10/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-11/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-12/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-13/con_0001.nii,1'
'/storage/essicd/data/NIDM-Ex/BIDS_Data/RESULTS/EXAMPLES/ds011/SPM/LEVEL1/sub-14/con_0001.nii,1'
};
As you can see the value is defined on multiple lines, and we don't handle multi-lines definitions for now
I'll raise an issue
@cmaumet now ready to merge
"wasAttributedTo" contains duplicate informations w.r.t
wasGeneratedBy
+wasAssociatedWith
Plus we already removed it from our SPM parser, as the resulting graph was visually not interpretable
removing it