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

Adaptive supra bugs out #2129

Open
1 task done
t-b opened this issue Jun 4, 2024 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #2123
Open
1 task done

Adaptive supra bugs out #2129

t-b opened this issue Jun 4, 2024 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #2123
Labels
Analysis Functions bug Something isn't working

Comments

@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator

t-b commented Jun 4, 2024

Link: https://aiephys.slack.com/archives/C06P3MYEV6H/p1716920346361379

  • Tim will upload the file
@t-b t-b added bug Something isn't working Analysis Functions labels Jun 4, 2024
@t-b t-b linked a pull request Jun 12, 2024 that will close this issue
22 tasks
@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-b commented Jun 13, 2024

From QN24.26.009.20.07A.03.nwb:

  !!! Assertion FAILED !!!
  Message: "Non matching wave sizes"
  Please provide the following information if you contact the MIES developers:
  ################################
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Stacktrace:
  DQM_FIFOMonitor(...)#L159 [MIES_DataAcquisition_Multi.ipf]
DQM_StopDataAcq(...)#L347 [MIES_DataAcquisition_Multi.ipf]
SWS_SaveAcquiredData(...)#L69 [MIES_SweepSaving.ipf]
AS_HandlePossibleTransition(...)#L109 [MIES_AcquisitionStateHandling.ipf]
AFM_CallAnalysisFunctions(...)#L168 [MIES_AnalysisFunctionManagement.ipf]
PSQ_DAScale(...)#L3537 [MIES_AnalysisFunctions_PatchSeq.ipf]
PSQ_DS_EvaluateAdaptiveThresholdSweep(...)#L2408 [MIES_AnalysisFunctions_PatchSeq.ipf]
PSQ_DS_GatherFutureDAScalesAndFrequency(...)#L2605 [MIES_AnalysisFunctions_PatchSeq.ipf]
PSQ_DS_GatherOvershootCorrection(...)#L2215 [MIES_AnalysisFunctions_PatchSeq.ipf]
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Time: 2024-05-28T14:18:34-07:00
  Locked device: [ITC18USB_Dev_0]
  Current sweep: [40]
  DAQ: [DAQ_BG_MULTI_DEVICE]
  Testpulse: [TEST_PULSE_NOT_RUNNING]
  Experiment: 2024_05_28_140535 (Packed)
  Igor Pro version: 9.0.6.1 (56565)
  MIES version:
  Release_2.7_20230809-747-g0051442b3
Date and time of last commit: 2024-05-23T19:58:12+00:00
Submodule status:
 bcbf5729ee85da80ea0f14dd5a42b55ed8fda47e Packages/IPNWB (remotes/origin/HEAD)
 d229d451f35e88b8c38edb8c26533acfbc3fd10f Packages/doc/doxygen-filter-ipf (heads/main)
 d557db885f2077bb1998cf9ef938477881c44775 Packages/igortest (v1.10-11-gd557db8)
  ################################

In b5300a3 (PSQ_DS_GatherAndWriteFrequencyToLabnotebook: Don't calculate apfrequency with failing baseline QC, 2024-05-02) we skipped calculating the ap frequency if the baseline QC is failing.

But this hurts us later in PSQ_DS_GatherOvershootCorrection as we then realize that we have a different number of dascale values compared to the apfrequency values.

@timjarsky
Copy link
Collaborator

timjarsky commented Jun 13, 2024

@t-b, should we only record DA scale values when sweeps pass QC?

@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-b commented Jun 14, 2024

@t-b, should we only record DA scale values when sweeps pass QC?

We always gather the DA scale value in the labnotebook. This is independent of the analysis functions. I guess the needed change is to gather APFreq and DAscale value only for passing sweeps.

@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-b commented Jun 14, 2024

Observations:

  • DAQ was stopped manually after sweep 40, ~4s after the first assertion.

@t-b
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-b commented Jun 19, 2024

The first analysis was wrong. The issue was that the currently displayed sweeps were changed but we assumed that it was not.

t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 19, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 9, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 15, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 15, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 16, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 17, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 19, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
t-b added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 23, 2024
Ever since the creation of the function in fab0fcf
(PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult: Extract out helper function, 2022-02-22) we
check that the requested sweep is one of the displayed sweeps.

But that does not make sense as the user might change currently displayed
sweeps. So instead we now don't check the sweep number, this requires that
the last store is the one which we want to query. This is the case for all
current function calls of PSQ_ExecuteSweepFormula/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResult/PSQ_GetSweepFormulaResultWave.

Close #2129
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Analysis Functions bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants