search

instamatic-dev / instamatic

Python program for automated electron diffraction data collection
https://instamatic.readthedocs.io/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
56 stars 25 forks source link

AttributeError: 'ConfigObject' object has no attribute 'pixelsize_diff' #37

Closed kttn8769 closed 4 years ago

kttn8769 commented 4 years ago

Hi,

I have noticed that config.calibration.pixelsize_diff is not accessible after importing instamatic.config.

Accessing config.calibration.pixelsize_diff throws an exception AttributeError: 'ConfigObject' object has no attribute 'pixelsize_diff'.

Is this an expected behavior? I'm using commit fa6af761d842b2300ca86fef5f0431af3a2e3ebb in the sumulation mode.

And could you please show me in which code the attribute pixelsize_diff is defined?

Sorry I'm asking you many times these days. Thanks!

stefsmeets commented 4 years ago

Hi @kttn8769, try: config.calibration['diff']['pixelsize']

stefsmeets commented 4 years ago

And could you please show me in which code the attribute pixelsize_diff is defined?

The values are defined in your calibration yaml: instamatic -l calibration. In the code it's here: https://github.com/stefsmeets/instamatic/blob/master/instamatic/config/__init__.py#L96

Can you tell me where you found the syntax you used? I changed this already a while ago, because accessing the config in this way caused problems, but I noticed some references in the code that I forgot to update.

kttn8769 commented 4 years ago

Hi @stefsmeets ,

Ok, I understand the syntax is old-style, thank you.

I noticed this while I was reading instamatic.experiments.cred.experiment.Experiment.start_collection method to see how cRED is implemented.

By the way, I found two possible typos, https://github.com/stefsmeets/instamatic/blob/fbb001920cfbc3ecc1f6026e2f74433232118729/instamatic/main.py#L126 https://github.com/stefsmeets/instamatic/blob/fbb001920cfbc3ecc1f6026e2f74433232118729/instamatic/gui/debug_frame.py#L9

config.locations instead of config.location?

stefsmeets commented 4 years ago

Yep, good point! Thanks for the heads-up. Somehow I missed these variables when sweeping through the code.

I should find a way to incorporate the experimental part in the automated tests to catch this.