Add HCS support to Remove_KeyVal.py

[will-moore]

See https://forum.image.sc/t/uploading-key-value-pairs-from-csv-files-into-omero-web-for-plates/60202/48

This adds HCS support to the Remove_KeyVal.py, extending the existing logic for Datasaets (where ALL key-value pairs on a Dataset and it's Images are deleted).

To test:

• Add Key-Value pairs to a Plate and 1 or more Wells and Images within it
• Select the Plate and run the Remove KeyVal script
• All Map Annotations on the Plate, Wells and Images should be deleted

cc @abhamacher

[imagesc-bot]

This pull request has been mentioned on Image.sc Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.image.sc/t/uploading-key-value-pairs-from-csv-files-into-omero-web-for-plates/60202/50

[abhamacher]

Hi Will,

thanks for your fast implementation. I tested the script on a 96-well and a 384-well plate and it worked well on deleting the KV-pairs on wells and images. I tried it also with single images of a plate, which worked too without issues.

Now, that there are scripts for adding and deleting KV-pairs on plates, it would be lovely to have an "export all KV-pairs" too, which is available in the original KV-pair script from Chris Evenhuis for Datasets. But that has probably not the highest priority, the other two scripts were more importing from my point of view.

Thanks!

[JensWendt]

Hi, tried it on one plate with all 3 levels (plate, well, image) annotated. Plate was not full but only a few wells with 2 images each. Worked.

[sbesson]

The CI failures seem to be largely independent of this PR but it looks like GitHub Actions got (auto)disabled when https://github.com/ome/omero-scripts/pull/193 was merged while the new added script did not meet the codestyle requirement (flake8).

Available options are either to fix these issues or exclude the script e.g. via configuration.

[will-moore]

@sbesson I fixed all the flake8 issues with Remove_KeyVal.py, so maybe if this could be merged, then I could fix flake8 for the other scripts in a separate PR (probably in #195).

[joshmoore]

:+1:

[sbesson]

Thanks @will-moore and agreed on fixing only the warning associated with the script modified in this PR and handling the other ones separately. @joshmoore beat me to it it seems. Is it worth capturing the remaining flake8 fixes as an issue?

[joshmoore]

Is it worth capturing the remaining flake8 fixes as an issue?

I started to, but with #195 open (and failing) I figured it's essentially a blocker there.