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.

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

Changing the default behavior of the workflows to create the output file(s) in the current working directory. #1539

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@parichit
Copy link
Contributor

parichit commented May 29, 2018

The default value of the output strategy parameter is updated to 'absolute'. It was 'append' earlier. Now, with absolute, the output files are being created in the current working directory.

This behavior can be changed by passing other values for --out_strat parameter to create the output files in either,

A) Current working directory (default: 'absolute')
B) In the same path as the input files ('append')

Parichit Sharma added some commits May 24, 2018

Parichit Sharma
Display a helpful message when,
1) There is a mismatch between the number of arguments in the doc string and
the run method.
Parichit Sharma
Modified the default output strategy to 'absolute' from 'append'.
Details:

1) The default output strategy being used in the workflows was 'append'.
This was always creating the output files in the path where the first input
file is located. This behavior was updated to create the new output files
in the current working directory.

1.a) Two workflows have been tested after making this change to check if the
output file is being created in the expected location.

2) A collection of use cases to test the behavior of the workflows with respect to
where the output would be created under different circumstances for e.g.

2.a) When all the input files are in the same directory.
2.b) When input files are located in different directories.
2.c) When --mix_names is used and when it is not used.

The documentation of the test cases can be seen here,
https://github.com/parichit/dipy/tree/document_test_cases/dipy_test_cases
@pep8speaks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

pep8speaks commented May 29, 2018

Hello @parichit, Thank you for submitting the Pull Request !

Line 38:21: E231 missing whitespace after ','
Line 39:23: E251 unexpected spaces around keyword / parameter equals
Line 39:52: E225 missing whitespace around operator
Line 39:68: E225 missing whitespace around operator

Line 25:5: E265 block comment should start with '# '
Line 26:5: E265 block comment should start with '# '

Line 153:5: E265 block comment should start with '# '

Do see the DIPY coding Style guideline

@parichit parichit closed this May 30, 2018

@parichit

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

parichit commented May 30, 2018

I am closing this pull request because there are few extra lines of code that got committed to this branch.

I will be creating another pull request with only the desired changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment