Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Scanning probe interface still uses boolean indicators for failures etc. #64

Open
LukePiewalker opened this issue Jan 16, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #97
Open

Scanning probe interface still uses boolean indicators for failures etc. #64

LukePiewalker opened this issue Jan 16, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #97
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@LukePiewalker
Copy link
Contributor

Feature Description

Rather then using int return values or boolean failure indicators, one should raise meaningfull exceptions if something goes wrong.

Related Problem

Current implementation is a mess between, bool and int indicators which does not necessarily help while bug fixing.

Considered Alternatives

This field is mandatory. But there is no real Alternative, then doing it proper.

Additional Context

No response

Contact Details

No response
@LukePiewalker LukePiewalker added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 16, 2023
@LukePiewalker LukePiewalker changed the title [New Feature] Scanning probe interface still uses boolean indicators for failures etc. Scanning probe interface still uses boolean indicators for failures etc. Jan 16, 2023
@qku qku linked a pull request Sep 26, 2023 that will close this issue
Open
11 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

scanning probe dataclasses and back scan functionality qku/qudi-iqo-modules
1 participant
@LukePiewalker