Correctly set imageset_id column in integration

[jbeilstenedmands]

Currently, the imageset_id column is only output by dials.integrate if include_bad_reference=True (which we turn on by default for xia2). Fortunately the result is accidentally correct for integrating a single-sweep (due to the default null value of flex.int being 0) but wrong for multi sweep data.

The fix is to actually set the imageset_id at the prediction stage of dials.integrate.

To reproduce the bug, take any multi-sweep data and import together in dials.import

dials.import sweep1*.cbf sweep2*.cbf
dials.find_spots imported.expt
dials.index imported.expt strong.refl
dials.integrate indexed.* include_bad_reference = True

Now if you open the integrated files in the dials.image_viewer, currently all integrated reflections will be shown on the first imageset, and any unintegrated reflections are shown correctly on their imagesets. If include_bad_reference=False (default for dials.integrate) then the image viewer correctly works out which reflections belong to which image through the id column.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1762 (c7083a0) into main (0008175) will increase coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 78.46%.

❗ Current head c7083a0 differs from pull request most recent head 68f8ebc. Consider uploading reports for the commit 68f8ebc to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1762      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.14%   67.28%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         615      616       +1     
  Lines       69053    69061       +8     
  Branches     9616     9623       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits        46365    46467     +102     
+ Misses      20756    20652     -104     
- Partials     1932     1942      +10     

[Anthchirp]

cf. #1764

[ndevenish]

This appears to not update any unintegrated reflections - is this information just permanently lost, at the moment?

[ndevenish]

After discussion, we concluded that this is fine and I misinterpreted the wider context of the code.