Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Axes v0.4 #93
Axes v0.4 #93
Changes from 10 commits
3d0c7a2
288a1d6
9f2297e
d079905
b3db05d
9568de9
3ec5f56
70975a4
cc44688
b4ecba4
9194fdd
27df32b
c9447be
0346685
b4ab862
adbe8f5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Now that I see this API (introduced in ome/ome-zarr-py#124) in action, I am slightly confused. I think this is primarily because
transformations
is generated from the knowledge ofpaths
above and then later re-zipped withpaths
when writing the metadata.An alternative workflow would be to support
datasets
either as lists of string or dictionaries inwrite_multiscales_metadata
.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.
Perhaps slightly related to my thoughts in ome/ome-zarr-py#161 (review)
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.
since
datasets
would includepaths
, we would just havewrite_multiscales_metadata(group, datasets)
and remove support for paths? Or ifdatasets
is a list of strings, treat it aspaths
(wouldn't break the API, but could be more confusing).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.
Similar questions and concerns around the usability came up in ome/ome-zarr-py#157 when adding support for
plate.wells
as list of dictionaries alongside list of strings (also corresponding to individual well paths).At least, I find
List[Union[str, dict]]
to be a fairly good compromise that allows to handle both the simple use case where a minimal valid spec is generated from a list of paths and the extensible scenario where the caller wants to store additional metadata (and not necessarily specified by the OME-NGFF spec) to thedatasets
element.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 also wonder about the API for reading the transformations in
ome-zarr-py
. These are currently a 2D list in thenode.metadata
(not in the form ofdatasets
) sincepaths
are not returned by the reader: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.
See ome/ome-zarr-py#162