Update ElphyIO #1011
Merged
Update ElphyIO #1011
Conversation
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
|
Hello @JuliaSprenger! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found: There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2021-07-05 16:17:25 UTC |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR readds ElphyIO to the standard list of IOs, updates it to be compatible with the current python versions and adds very basic tests. For now the tests are only checking if data objects were create, but do not check the data values loaded. Here I am missing the time for implementation as well as an alternative system to read elphy files for comparison.
@samuelgarcia @apdavison Do you think this is still enough to keep Elphy in the list of supported IOs despite #950 ?
I did not look into #332 yet, as there's no link to the mentioned alternative implementation.