Fix attribute names in Simple Ring #655
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In order to generate a twiss_in style input, you need a ring to begin with.
Why? It's just a generalised way of defining the optics properties: you give all the parameters you want in a single dict object. And since the R matrices are a generalisation of the 2D alpha and beta parameters, you can even define a fully coupled beam.
I cannot really envisage a scenario where I might have only the output of some tracking results (a sigma matrix)...
Same remark: a sigma matrix has nothing to do with tracking. It's the simplest way to describe the beam size and divergence you want (6D ellipsoid), without having to care about beta values.
Anyway, all that is not needed, my concern was about names, so it's OK for merging.
(I did not think of changing the names of the C variables, but why not…)
I'll look at the Matlab version.
|
Thanks for your comments. I made the changes you suggest. I agree we can do the simple_ring modifications with twiss in and sigma_matrix at a later date. Ready for merge, just needs reapproval. |
# By Laurent Farvacque (14) and others # Via GitHub * master: (28 commits) Add passive beamloading cavity (#586) Create BndStrMPoleSymplectic4RadPass (#665) Documentation fixes (#669) Update of the build process (#659) New Matlab function atsimplering (#657) Collective bugfix (#664) Correct the attribute name of solenoids in Matlab (#663) Error parsing args for twiss_in and r_4d (#662) Fix atmaincavities (#656) Fix attribute names in Simple Ring (#655) Remove collective passes from internal lattice_pass (#650) The DPStep keyword in linopt6 raises an error for 4D lattices (#651) Bug fix in atdisable_6d: keep the Energy field in cavities. (#654) fix: ring phase advances in computeRDT.m (#652) Correct the axis definition in plot_sigma (#648) Don't automatically cache the location of RF cavities (#640) Simple ring model (#643) Correct Dipole tapering (#623) Chromatic functions extended (#644) Repair the Matlab tests (#645) ... # Conflicts: # atmat/Contents.m # atmat/atphysics/Radiation/atdisable_6d.m # atmat/atphysics/Radiation/atenable_6d.m # atmat/lattice/at2str.m # atmat/pubtools/create_elems/atidtable_dat.m # pyat/at/lattice/elements.py # pyat/at/lattice/lattice_object.py # pyat/at/physics/matrix.py # pyat/at/physics/radiation.py # pyat/examples/CollectiveEffects/RobinsonInstability.py
This PR addresses the main comments from @lfarv in #647 . However I would like to discuss a bit the other comments.
I don't feel that there is any added value allowing a twiss_in input for simple_ring. In order to generate a twiss_in style input, you need a ring to begin with. In this case it is much easier to use fast_ring to generate your new ring and not bother using simple_ring.
I cannot really envisage a scenario where I might have only the output of some tracking results (a sigma matrix) and then I have to find an equivalent lattice to give me these parameters (where I still have to provide tunes and other non-linear parameters).