-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 320
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
Hotfix/live plot #270
Hotfix/live plot #270
Conversation
removes the log message: WARNING:root:Error getting or interpreting *IDN?: '' We could also remove the IDN parameter from mocks, but maybe this will be useful?
use modified_range and last_saved_index exclusively, rather than looking for NaN in the data, which allows for array-valued parameters where there may be lots of data in one column beyond the others
Yep, it works now 👍 Thanks Alex. |
I'd split the pr in two parts, the IDN on mock is totally unrelated and could just be pushed straight to master :D |
Yes, that would have been cleaner. But I don't like pushing straight to master, even for uncontroversial things like this, because then nobody sees the change. |
|
||
If it's not complete, back up one point so that we don't need | ||
to rewrite this point later on when it *is* complete | ||
def _match_save_range_whole_file(self, arrays, only_complete): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@giulioungaretti is this a warning you consider worthwhile to include? I suppose we could "fix" it by pulling this function out of the class (bad! makes it harder to read) or probably by turning this into a @staticmethod
but to me that just seems distracting for not much benefit, so I'd vote to turn this warning off unless you have a strong opinion otherwise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's super super important actually :D And to suppress the warning with @staticmethod is the way I would go ! It's very pythonic 🐍
For me it's a clear message that the method/function is pure, and has no relation to the state of the object but just a logical relation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I can see that argument... for my own part I would have preferred not to introduce a whole new concept (@staticmethod
) just to signal this, but OK.
Ok, then let's maybe discuss this in another place, but then for which kind of branching model are we aming for ? Idk, a well written commit, it's always there in the logs, and the non git-fu people get a notification on slack :D |
@giulioungaretti OK to 💃 now? |
@alexcjohnson could be the perfect time to fix docstrings ? :P |
💃 X 🍦 |
Here is an overview of what got changed by this pull request: Issues
======
+ Solved 1
Complexity increasing per file
==============================
- qcodes/tests/test_format.py 3
See the complete overview on Codacy |
Merge: 89d7a2c 249f7a4 Author: alexcjohnson <[email protected]> Merge pull request #270 from qdev-dk/hotfix/live-plot
Fixes part of #259 - that array-valued parameters not only won't live plot from a Loop, they won't even sync correctly.
Changes proposed in this pull request:
@nataliejpg can you verify that this fixes live plotting with the VNA?