You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ah, I didn't realise it was different in the experiment sheets!
I think what we need in the combined sheet is the highest priority requested across the different experiments, but only by DCPP (or whatever MIP you are doing it for). Since the DCPP request is the same for all experiments then this will just be the priority requested by DCPP.
Would that be ok?
[from Doug Smith]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
First: the "aggregated spreadsheet" are the files labeled by cmvmm_, correct?
I want to check whether my understanding is correct, as our software relies on this, and I am still confused by the dreq 01.00.27 release notes concerning this point.
The column which from now on (dreq 01.00.27) is labeled by "Default Priority" is a kind of default priority of a certain variable for this MIP if I understand correctly .This priority however can differ within a MIP for different experiments I understand. I hope/expect then that the default priority gives the highest occurring priority for this certain variable which is encountered among the experiments within one MIP (where 1 is the highest priority and 3 is the lowest priority), is this correct? If this is not the case, I at least hope that the variables ending up in this cmvmm_ files are selected on this criterion?
I have often seen higher numbers (2 and 3) in the "Priority" column in the cmvmm_ files in data request up to 01.00.26 while I requested for priority 1.
Ah, I didn't realise it was different in the experiment sheets!
I think what we need in the combined sheet is the highest priority requested across the different experiments, but only by DCPP (or whatever MIP you are doing it for). Since the DCPP request is the same for all experiments then this will just be the priority requested by DCPP.
Would that be ok?
[from Doug Smith]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: