Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve handling of missing epochs in epochs #2249

Open
t-b opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Improve handling of missing epochs in epochs #2249

t-b opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working SweepFormula

Comments

@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator

t-b commented Sep 3, 2024

From #2109 (comment):

Problem with missing epochs could be solved like this: If no wildcard patterns are used in the textual epoch specification for epochs() then we can keep non-existing epochs as empty ranges. e.g. for sweep 18 we would return a (2,2) array where the range for E2 is [NaN,NaN]. Then in data() we skip sweep data extraction if the current range evaluated is [NaN,NaN].

If wildcards are used for epoch names in epochs we can not do that because we do not know how many matches we get for each sweep. We also do not know how the matches order up, such that a "auto indexed" addition may hit on unrelated ranges.

and from #2109 (comment):

skipping over missing epochs - using the full stimset name is okay (rather than wildcards), especially if there were a way to pass the acquired stimulus set names over zeroMQ
Generate a warning when data is missing

@t-b t-b added bug Something isn't working SweepFormula labels Sep 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working SweepFormula
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant