Add main workflow of phys2denoise#17
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Stefano Moia <s.moia@bcbl.eu>
Co-authored-by: @62442katieb <kbott006@fiu.edu>
|
We're ready for review! In any case, please have a look! @tsalo @eurunuela @62442katieb, let's see if we can merge this soon(ish)! |
|
Also let me be clear: this is a little, small, first step toward having something that given an input returns an output that makes sense (together with the other bunch of PRs). Nowhere near the state of development we want to get to though! For this reason I'm using the minormod-breaking label. We're still in alpha after all. |
|
Oh, I almost forgot. You should update the label if you think this is a majormod (I think it is). |
Yup, you're right in that this is a majormod, however I thought that the general approach we wanted to follow (phys2bids#192) was not to go in the 1.0 + versioning until we leave beta stage. That's why I'm adopting the minormod-breaking label (after the suggestions in phys2bids#192) |
Sounds good! It's also good that we have it written on this thread for future reference. |
| **args) | ||
| elif metrics == 'retroicor_resp': | ||
| args = select_input_args(compute_retroicor_regressors, metric_args) | ||
| args['resp'] = True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't make more sense to modify this so we don't have two if conditions, one here and another one in the retroicor code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean @vinferrer ? The two ifs do different things (Or you mean to recode the three functions in retroicor intotwo? But then there's quite a lot of lines that are common...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, after seeing that you don't input the metrics argument directly, why don't you put this line inside select_input_args I think you can reduce this if statement at least, another thing is that instead of creating the dictionary entry args['card'] = True when metrics == 'retroicor_card' you could use directly the metrics == 'retroicor_card' inside compute_retroicor_regressors. Do you follow? or should I do suggestions in both PR's?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can avoid an extra if statement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean, you have a function called select_input_args I would include the type of metric detection inside of this function rather than in the main workflow
phys2denoise.py
Outdated
| else: | ||
| args = select_input_args(metric, metric_args) | ||
| print_metric_call(metric, args) | ||
| regr[f'{metric}'] = metric(physio, **args) |
|
🚀 PR was released in |
Closes #14
Proposed Changes
Change Type
bugfix(+0.0.1)minor(+0.1.0)major(+1.0.0)refactoring(no version update)test(no version update)infrastructure(no version update)documentation(no version update)otherChecklist before review