[tested] check state

[alfonsotecnalia]

No image in docker_hub. There is an space for the image but no image has been uploaded.

[alfonsotecnalia]

yaml information updated and uploaded

[aremazeilles]

I just uploaded the image to DockerHub

[alfonsotecnalia]

There is a subject_S_choice_metabolicCost.yaml for one of the entry points. I assume this file keeps constant for all the conditions/runs of the experiment for a subject. Could the information inside be included in subject_S_info.yaml? If not I should change the PiManager logic to handle this. This would have sense if this kind of file is used by other algorithms (and I think it is not the case).

[aremazeilles]

The example I have is as follows:

$ ls
condition_01.yaml
subject_01_cond_01_choice_metabolicCost.yaml
subject_01_cond_01_run_01_balance.csv
subject_01_cond_01_run_01_chrono.csv
subject_01_cond_01_run_01_hrv.csv
subject_01_cond_01_run_01_jointAngles.csv
subject_01_cond_01_run_03_questionnaire_borgScale10.csv
subject_01_cond_01_run_03_questionnaire_medAssist.csv
subject_01_info.yaml

So that I cannot deduce how to rename the choice file. Will ask to Jawad...

[aremazeilles]

Answer from Jawad:

This file remains consistent throughout the run, i.e. run independent. It depends only on the subject and the testing conditions. So for 2 subjects, 2 conditions, 2 runs, you can use four files only.

1. subject_01_cond_01_choice_metabolicCost.yaml
2. subject_01_cond_02_choice_metabolicCost.yaml
3. subject_02_cond_01_choice_metabolicCost.yaml
4. subject_02_cond_02_choice_metabolicCost.yaml

---

So far me it sounds like a subject_x_condition_y.yaml , as it is constant per run for a given subject and condition setting.

BUT we only have a condition_01.yaml.

condition.yaml:

assitance_level: 1
number_runs: 10
number_subjects: 3
force: 20
height1: 1
height2: 1.6
load: 10
velocity: 1.38
horizontalMovement: 0.1
slope: 5

subject_01_cond_01_choice_metabolicCost.yaml:

mainOption1: 1
subOption1: 2
mainOption2: 2
subOption2: 10
mainOption3: 2
subOption3: 15

Two options:

1. the software can handle both condition_01.yaml and subject_x_condition_y.yaml
2. we duplicate subject_x_condition_y.yaml for each run, and name it like subject_x_cond_y_run_z_platformData.yaml.

If the PI manager cannot handle the 1st option right now, I would just propose to go for the 2nd option. It is a workaround to get the output compliant, but I could live with it from my side.

[alfonsotecnalia]

we already support both condition_C.yaml and subject_S_condition_C.yaml. I think we could handle even subject_S_condition_C(_xxxxxxxxxxx).yaml with a minor change. Let me try it.

[aremazeilles]

I know you can handle both. The question is whether you could handle both at the same time

[alfonsotecnalia]

Of course we can do it at the same time. First we look for condition(_C).yaml (without anything bedore condition) and then we look for subject(_S)_condition(_C).yaml. The names should be renamed from subject_S_cond_C_choice_metabolicCost.yaml to subject_S_condition_C_choice_metabolicCost.yaml

[aremazeilles]

Great then, I will propose this adjustment, but as files are created manually, I doubt there would be any issue.

[alfonsotecnalia]

As there is only type and as it is already implemented I propose to rename them to subject_S_condition_C.yaml. I have to check whether adding characters after _C would work (specially if they have underscores)

[aremazeilles]

Ok, I wait for your final check for updating the repository acordingly then

[alfonsotecnalia]

Checked. It can be specified both subject_S_condition_C.yaml or subject_S_condition_C_choice_metabolicCost.yaml. When specifying inputs of the algorithm you put subject_condition.yaml or subject_condition_choice_metabolicCost.yaml

[aremazeilles]

How could I have any doubt about the robustness of your code?

[alfonsotecnalia]

It was only working with subject_S_condition_C.yaml but I have extended it. Anyway, you are right to doubt. I have a person subcontracted for doing the real time parsing. Depending on how much he/she sleeps, the PiManager could work better or worse.

[aremazeilles]

I made the change, and assigned it to you for revision. Can you check it without merging ? If it is ok, I will bring the change to the origin branch first.

[aremazeilles]

V0.0.1 uploaded .

[alfonsotecnalia]

ok, I will test it and change the status in eurobench_protocol

[alfonsotecnalia]

done. tested uploaded and working in the website