Add write settings.json for back compatibility for early-adopters of SortingAnalyzer#2792
Merged
alejoe91 merged 1 commit intoSpikeInterface:mainfrom May 2, 2024
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Hi Zach. |
samuelgarcia
approved these changes
May 2, 2024
Member
|
Note that we should do the same for the zarr case no ? Maybe not. Lets do it on demand. |
alejoe91
approved these changes
May 2, 2024
Member
Author
Yeah based on our issue tracker so far everyone (my group + myself included) are using |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #2788
See issue for full discussion but basically before
return_scaledwas global thesettings.jsonfile was not written and is now required to reload a SortingAnalyzer. This just writes the file to allow for compatibility for early adopters and can be removed at some point in the future.@samuelgarcia is this what you had in mind based on our discussion in the issue?