Support 2.5.0

[lawrence-mbf]

Motivation

Support NWB Schema 2.5.0

How to test the behavior?

Run nwbtest with source files without (new) errors.

Checklist

• Have you ensured the PR description clearly describes the problem and solutions?
• Have you checked to ensure that there aren't other open or previously closed Pull Requests for the same change?
• If this PR fixes an issue, is the first line of the PR description fix #XX where XX is the issue number?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #435 (968e1cf) into master (5cc0ff6) will decrease coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #435      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.02%   85.92%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         125      126       +1     
  Lines        5125     5216      +91     
==========================================
+ Hits         4409     4482      +73     
- Misses        716      734      +18     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
generateCore.m	95.23% <100.00%> (ø)
+types/+untyped/DataPipe.m	63.88% <0.00%> (-5.02%)	⬇️
+types/+untyped/+datapipe/BlueprintPipe.m	75.00% <0.00%> (-0.52%)	⬇️
+file/fillProps.m	95.08% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
...pes/+untyped/+datapipe/+properties/DynamicFilter.m	75.86% <0.00%> (ø)
+io/+space/findShapes.m	95.65% <0.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
+types/+untyped/+datapipe/BoundPipe.m	77.53% <0.00%> (+0.72%)	⬆️
+tests/+unit/dataPipeTest.m	98.73% <0.00%> (+0.81%)	⬆️
+file/fillExport.m	98.47% <0.00%> (+1.52%)	⬆️
+types/+untyped/+datapipe/+properties/Shuffle.m	100.00% <0.00%> (+37.50%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us.

[rly]

FYI NWB 2.5.0 has been released.

[lawrence-mbf]

@rly @oruebel It looks like there is still an error introduced with 2.5.0. In the schema, what does the default_value indicate if the value is also optional (required: false)? Right now we're automatically setting data_offset in the TimeSeries object to 0.0 since that's the default value but it appears to be empty in PyNWB.

[rly]

@lawrence-mbf Sorry I am just seeing this. If the field is optional (required: false), then the default_value represents what the API and users should interpret the value to be if the field is not present. It looks like this is no longer an issue though with the latest PyNWB. Is that correct?

[rly]

With MatNWB now supporting NWB schema 2.5.0, should there be a new release?

[lawrence-mbf]

@rly Yes, this must have been fixed, thus I merged it during the User days. I'll see to drafting a release in a bit.