Physics package

[bnmajor]

Relies on the HEXRD absorption-correction branch.

[pep8speaks]

Hello @bnmajor! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

• In the file hexrdgui/physics_package_manager_dialog.py:

Line 75:80: E501 line too long (83 > 79 characters)

Comment last updated at 2024-09-06 21:52:01 UTC

[bnmajor]

@psavery @saransh13 Some additional questions:

1. We currently expect there to be a sample_materials and window_materials file like the pinhole_materials which we do not have - do we need to create these files (and if so which materials should be included)? Or should we just use the pinhole_materials file?
   1. Same question for filter/coating/phosphor for the absorption correction dialog
2. We discussed automatically applying pinhole corrections and that the pinhole should be set to None if it is not needed but that is not currently an option.
   1. Do we want to change this condition to allow None as well? If so, is it safe to assume that we will never call calc_transmission (which calls calc_effective_pinhole_area) without a pinhole?
   2. Would it be simpler to say that if this is a TARDIS or PXRDIP (and eventually BBXRD) instrument we just automatically apply pinhole corrections?
3. How should we handle inferring instrument type? Currently we set that automatically if users come from the LLNL import tool, but how should we handle this if they do not? We have engineering constraints to determine if it is TARDIS, but no clear solution for PXRDIP.
4. Absorption correction is being normalized but still looked like it may be incorrect - @saransh13 I will need your feedback here for sure

[psavery]

My thoughts are:

1. Yes we probably need to make those files (but I think filter/coating/phosphor will just be a dict within HEXRD)
2. I think we probably want to allow the transmission to be calculated without a pinhole (make the pinhole optional in transmission calculation)
3. You can just use this function, Brianna. That detects both TARDIS and PXRDIP automatically (and only those two so far) based upon the detector names.
4. It looks like we are finding the max transmission across all detectors and normalizing based upon that. I think that is the behavior we planned. Maybe something else is missing, @saransh13?

[bnmajor]

3. You can just use this function, Brianna. That detects both TARDIS and PXRDIP automatically (and only those two so far) based upon the detector names.

Looks like this only can guess TARDIS, or am I missing something? If not I can add PXRDIP

[psavery]

I've found it usually better to not edit the style sheets (when possible), because when we do so, things like dark mode on the Mac don't change colors properly.

[psavery]

Can you move this import down into the if statement right before it is used? That will help us to not import it unless we actually need it...

This could alternatively be imported at the top of the file, but I'm assuming there's a circular import issue or something like that.

[psavery]

I really think the pinhole ought to be a property of the instrument rather than the detector (there is only one pinhole per experiment, there are not separate pinholes for separate detectors).

Can we change HEXRD to have the following be on the instrument: sample layer, window, pinhole. If the detector needs it for something, maybe we can pass them as arguments?

Let me know if that is a lot of work to do.

[psavery]

I've sometimes ran into trouble using loop variables in lambda expressions. Maybe this is fine - but can you just verify that all values of k (not just the last one) work properly?

[psavery]

I usually think it's better to just connect to a signal once, and have an expression like on_accepted() that calls self.accept_changes() and self.ui.accept().

However, you don't need to change this! That's just FYI.

[psavery]

Suggested change

	import hexrdgui.resources.materials as module
	import hexrdgui.resources.materials as materials_resources

Can you rename this to something more specific than module?

[psavery]

Are we still letting users manually edit the absorption correction length in the Rygg pinhole correction editor? If not, I don't think we need this, right?