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.

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

BF - fix eudx tracking for npeaks=1 #1888

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jul 10, 2019

Conversation

@gabknight
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 5, 2019

This addresses #1807

  • The last peak was always incorrectly missing. This was especially visible when there was a single peak...
  • Added a test for it.
@pep8speaks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 5, 2019

Hello @gabknight, Thank you for updating !

Cheers ! There are no PEP8 issues in this Pull Request. 🍻

Comment last updated at 2019-07-09 08:44:16 UTC
@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 5, 2019

Codecov Report

❗️ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@c8176ac). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1888   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   85.32%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      118           
  Lines             ?    14224           
  Branches          ?     2236           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    12136           
  Misses            ?     1577           
  Partials          ?      511
dipy/reconst/tests/test_peak_dg.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dipy/reconst/peak_direction_getter.pyx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

@gabknight gabknight force-pushed the gabknight:BF_fix_tracking_npeak1 branch from a447e45 to 2c28c89 Jul 9, 2019

@skoudoro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 9, 2019

Since you are looking at Eudx, is the following issue still relevant: #325?

@gabknight

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 10, 2019

Since you are looking at Eudx, is the following issue still relevant: #325?

@skoudoro EuDX(.) will now be LocalTracking(.) and PeaksAndMetricDG will get the needed information directly from the PeaksAndMetric object. So the specific error should not happen.

However, this does not clarify the cython ValueError from dipy.tracking.propspeed.eudx_both_directions(.) that @Garyfallidis mentioned (which is also used by PeaksAndMetricDG).

So might want to close this issue, and make a new general one on better handling of cython ValueError.

@arokem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 10, 2019

I think this is ready to go? @skoudoro : do you agree? Or is your comment still something that needs too be addressed here?

@skoudoro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 10, 2019

Agree, you can merge it! I just need to create a new issue and close #325 as gab suggested. will do later

@arokem arokem merged commit 535c01a into nipy:master Jul 10, 2019

5 checks passed

Codacy/PR Quality Review Up to standards. A positive pull request.
Details
codecov/patch Coverage not affected.
Details
codecov/project No report found to compare against
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.