Adds url to automatic definition writing

[domna]

This adds that entry/definition/@url is automatically set to the nexus definitions repo. We also set this in the root attribute NexusRepository but @RonHildebrandt and I thought it would be reasonable to also automatically add it to the definition.

In NXentry the attribute is actually uppercase (@URL) so we might need to change this accordingly. @RonHildebrandt this should then also be changed in NXraman and any appdefs this is required in.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9761543512

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 96.916%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9742172344:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	597
Relevant Lines:	616

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9761543512

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 96.916%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9742172344:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	597
Relevant Lines:	616

---

💛 - Coveralls

[RonHildebrandt]

This sounds good. Think it is generally good to add this in a NeXus file itself, and not the part which is added from pynxtools. (e.g. if NeXus file is created without pynxtools).

[domna]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

[lukaspie]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

I have a branch FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-xps#67 that updates the test files (and which works with this branch here, check the pynx compatibility action), but then the pytest actions in pynxtools-xps are failing (because it checks against released pynxtools). What would be the best strategy here? Merge this branch here with the plugin tests failing and then we do the changes in the plugin repos?

[domna]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

I have a branch FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-xps#67 that updates the test files (and which works with this branch here, check the pynx compatibility action), but then the pytest actions in pynxtools-xps are failing (because it checks against released pynxtools). What would be the best strategy here? Merge this branch here with the plugin tests failing and then we do the changes in the plugin repos?

Yes, I would say so. We should probably coordinate the merges and then do it quickly after each other

[lukaspie]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

I have a branch FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-xps#67 that updates the test files (and which works with this branch here, check the pynx compatibility action), but then the pytest actions in pynxtools-xps are failing (because it checks against released pynxtools). What would be the best strategy here? Merge this branch here with the plugin tests failing and then we do the changes in the plugin repos?

Yes, I would say so. We should probably coordinate the merges and then do it quickly after each other

Ok, from my side, it works, so just let me know when you merge this. I guess we would need @RubelMozumder to update his test data first.

[domna]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

I have a branch FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-xps#67 that updates the test files (and which works with this branch here, check the pynx compatibility action), but then the pytest actions in pynxtools-xps are failing (because it checks against released pynxtools). What would be the best strategy here? Merge this branch here with the plugin tests failing and then we do the changes in the plugin repos?

Yes, I would say so. We should probably coordinate the merges and then do it quickly after each other

Ok, from my side, it works, so just let me know when you merge this. I guess we would need @RubelMozumder to update his test data first.

Jep, I also need to update it for mpes. But lets wait and coordinate with @RubelMozumder (probably tomorrow since he has internet issues today)

[RubelMozumder]

cc @RubelMozumder @lukaspie, you would need to update the stm and xps regression files for this change to pass the tests

I have a branch FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-xps#67 that updates the test files (and which works with this branch here, check the pynx compatibility action), but then the pytest actions in pynxtools-xps are failing (because it checks against released pynxtools). What would be the best strategy here? Merge this branch here with the plugin tests failing and then we do the changes in the plugin repos?

Yes, I would say so. We should probably coordinate the merges and then do it quickly after each other

Ok, from my side, it works, so just let me know when you merge this. I guess we would need @RubelMozumder to update his test data first.

Jep, I also need to update it for mpes. But lets wait and coordinate with @RubelMozumder (probably tomorrow since he has internet issues today)

I update the pynxtools-stm, regarding the PR. @domna you can approve it and merge it. So, you will get any github action failing from plugin_test action.

[domna]

We need to use uppercase @URL, otherwise the concept is not recognised. @RonHildebrandt I think you should update this in your NXoptical_spectroscopy definition accordingly. @lukaspie Sorry, I think you need to do another update for your regression file to account for the uppercase notation.

Otherwise, we are just waiting on FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-stm#39 as the last merge which needs to be ready so we can do it quickly after each other.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9777818759

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 96.916%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9742172344:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	597
Relevant Lines:	616

---

💛 - Coveralls

[lukaspie]

We need to use uppercase @URL, otherwise the concept is not recognised. @RonHildebrandt I think you should update this in your NXoptical_spectroscopy definition accordingly. @lukaspie Sorry, I think you need to do another update for your regression file to account for the uppercase notation.

Otherwise, we are just waiting on FAIRmat-NFDI/pynxtools-stm#39 as the last merge which needs to be ready so we can do it quickly after each other.

No worries, I updated the pynxtools-xps branch one more.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9790520604

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 96.916%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9790306982:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	597
Relevant Lines:	616

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9790520604

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 96.916%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9790306982:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	597
Relevant Lines:	616

---

💛 - Coveralls