Harden raw data check in components for the future#713
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
I was surprised that the added line wasn't being reached in the tests. But the main code path that calls Let's add a couple of checks in |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As noticed in #712, we can make the generic
MultimodDetectorBase._data_is_raw()more robust against future changes to corrected data by using the.../CORR/...source names starting this run.As pointed out by @takluyver, AGIPD already uses a custom implementation of this method exploiting its shape change to differentiate between raw and proc.