search

nion-software / nionswift-instrumentation-kit

Base classes for Nion Swift STEM microscope instrumentation
GNU General Public License v3.0
1 stars 12 forks source link

Introduce a new processing option ("sum_masked"). Update UI and tests accordingly. #53

Closed Brow71189 closed 3 years ago

Brow71189 commented 3 years ago

This adds support for 0D data being returned by cameras. If the camera settings have an attribute "masks", the UI assumes that the camera supports this mode and offers an additional option "Virtual Detectors" in the style dropdown menu in the SI panel.

The "Maks" class is also part of instrumentation-kit now but the mask builder UI is up to the camera to implement for now. The "masks" attribute in the camera settings is meant to hold all the masks that are available for this camera. I think saving the available masks with the camera makes sense because you want different masks for different cameras. The active masks are saved in the camera frame parameters. This is the point I'm a bit unhappy about, because it causes calling dict(frame_parameters) not to return a JSON-serializable dictionary anymore. CameraFrameParameters implement a method as_dict(), which still returns a JSON-serializable dict so maybe it is fine.

Brow71189 commented 3 years ago

The new tests need nion-software/nionswift-usim#25 to work.

cmeyer commented 3 years ago

test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames is failing intermittently. I pushed a fix similar to the one from a few days ago. Can you rebase this PR?

======================================================================
FAIL: test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames (MultiAcquire_test.TestMultiAcquire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/runner/work/nionswift-instrumentation-kit/nionswift-instrumentation-kit/nion/instrumentation/test/MultiAcquire_test.py", line 130, in test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames
    self.assertAlmostEqual(val, calibrated_intensities[0], delta=100)
AssertionError: 97403560.0 != 97403660.0 within 100 delta (104.0 difference)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brow71189 commented 3 years ago

test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames is failing intermittently. I pushed a fix similar to the one from a few days ago. Can you rebase this PR?

======================================================================
FAIL: test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames (MultiAcquire_test.TestMultiAcquire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/runner/work/nionswift-instrumentation-kit/nionswift-instrumentation-kit/nion/instrumentation/test/MultiAcquire_test.py", line 130, in test_data_intensity_scale_is_correct_for_summed_frames
    self.assertAlmostEqual(val, calibrated_intensities[0], delta=100)
AssertionError: 97403560.0 != 97403660.0 within 100 delta (104.0 difference)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Done.