Following from the discussion of #37484, some entries in the instructions for the elwin tab of the Data Processor interface may lead to ambiguities and disparity of results, as the files asked for testing are both in UsageData and Sample Data-ISIS datasets. Also, there were some typos.
I have redacted the instructions, and hopefully they are more clear on what the results are expected to be.
Fixes #37513
Further detail of work
To test:
Build dev-docs.
Check manual testing instructions for Data Processor interface.
Redo the instructions for Elwin tab, Indirect data.
Check grammar and consistency of instructions.
Reviewer
Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.
Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?
Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.
Gatekeeper
If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.
Following from the discussion of #37484, some entries in the instructions for the elwin tab of the Data Processor interface may lead to ambiguities and disparity of results, as the files asked for testing are both in
UsageDataandSample Data-ISISdatasets. Also, there were some typos. I have redacted the instructions, and hopefully they are more clear on what the results are expected to be.Fixes #37513
Further detail of work
To test:
Elwintab,Indirectdata.Reviewer
Please comment on the points listed below (full description). Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.
Code Review
Functional Tests
Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of
@mantidproject/gatekeeperswill take care of it.Gatekeeper
If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.