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

dials.scale: allow wildcard for experiment in exclude_images #2560

Open
graeme-winter opened this issue Dec 3, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #2561
Open

dials.scale: allow wildcard for experiment in exclude_images #2560

graeme-winter opened this issue Dec 3, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #2561

Comments

@graeme-winter
Copy link
Contributor

Just had to write a script to

dials.scale ../work/symmetrized.* d_min=1.5 \
exclude_images=0:21:100,1:21:100,2:21:100,3:21:100,4:21:100,5:21:100,6:21:100,7:21:100,8:21:100,9:21:100,10:21:100,11:21:100,12:21:100,13:21:100,14:21:100,15:21:100,16:21:100,17:21:100,18:21:100,19:21:100

but it feels like a legitimate use case for modest-large-N data sets to say exclude imges a:b for all runs.

Propose syntax: exclude_images=*:21:100 in above case (since this is a common sense expectation)

@graeme-winter
Copy link
Contributor Author

newplot

use case: multi-crystal damaged data set where we hit it about 20x harder than intended

@graeme-winter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alt: by analogy with exclude_images_multiple -> exclude_images_all?

graeme-winter added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 3, 2023
Allows exclude_images=*:a:b to exclude a-b from every run

Fixes #2560
@graeme-winter graeme-winter linked a pull request Dec 3, 2023 that will close this issue
@dagewa
Copy link
Member

dagewa commented Dec 4, 2023

Currently specifying exclude_images=start:stop with multiple experiments raises an error ("Exclude images must be in the form experimentnumber:start:stop for multiple experiments"). Perhaps this restriction is artificial? If exclude_images=start:stop was simply made to mean exclude these images from every experiment, then it would work for single experiments and multiple experiments alike. Might that be a neat solution?

@jbeilstenedmands
Copy link
Contributor

I do like that suggestion @dagewa . As long as a message is printed out to say what is happening for the multiple experiments case, that would be a very neat solution.

@graeme-winter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Certainly happy with that - essentially avoiding ${USER} from having to write a script to perform a task was my desire. I will update the PR accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants