-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 249
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
Fix-ate plexon signal streams #1524
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this looks good to me. I'll leave this open until next week to see if @alejoe91 or @samuelgarcia want to take a look before merging. :)
OK, the test file that we have is quite limited. I would need this: |
Merged @h-mayorquin I'll re-run tests so you can confirm your changes work with the new demo file. |
The rtd failure should also be looked at. (Since plexon is used for the doc build!) |
Fixed the test and added a new one. |
neo/rawio/plexonrawio.py
Outdated
# The users of plexon can modify the channel names, is not common but in that case | ||
# We assign the channel_prefix both as stream_name and stream_id |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does this comment mean?
So they can re-name a channel to not be WB, FB, SP, AI etc... What part can they actually rename? Do we need to protect against that better or could we make this comment clearer to what the renaming actually entails?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The can modify the prefix. For example, in the test file that we had before I added the new one, the channel is named V1.
In that case I am adding V as both the stream name and id. This can't be generalized but the user changed the prefix for some reason so they should know what it means in neo when they see the header and in spikeinterface when they get the assertion that the stream was not found.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay I think I see what you mean! Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great! Let me know if there is an improvement to the comment that I could make.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it would make a little more sense in the comment to clarify channel name vs channel prefix. In the first part you say channel names, then you say we take the channel prefix. So making it clear: can the user modify the prefix, all of the name, the numbering of the channel.
Co-authored-by: Zach McKenzie <92116279+zm711@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is still good by me. @alejoe91 or @samuelgarcia want to take a quick look as well?
This PR solves two things:
Not that this moves forward the poject in SpikeInterface/spikeinterface#3197 that aims to have "logical streams" and relegate "buffer streams" to an internal implementation detail of the raw io API.