You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Alexander Grutter of NIST reports "I’ve been having issues with the binning when using the “Box Averaging in Qx” function. When interacting with a 2D plot and attempting to average a rectangular box, the number of points output does not seem to correspond to the number of requested bins. For example, if I select “edit slicer parameters” and ask for 64 bins, I will get some random number of points between 100-130. Upon trying to return to the default number of bins, nothing will happen. If I then request something simple such as 1-2 bins, I get something like 5-6 points. None of this happens when using the ““Box Averaging in Qy” function.
This issue is produced on both v2.2.1 and the latest development version available online."
I have verified this is the case also with the 2D data in the test folder. Once fixed Alex should be notified (at [email protected]) as part of the resolution to this ticket.
{
"status": "closed",
"changetime": "2014-03-31T11:15:19",
"_ts": "2014-03-31 11:15:19.172913+00:00",
"description": "Alexander Grutter of NIST reports \"I\u2019ve been having issues with the binning when using the \u201cBox Averaging in Qx\u201d function. When interacting with a 2D plot and attempting to average a rectangular box, the number of points output does not seem to correspond to the number of requested bins. For example, if I select \u201cedit slicer parameters\u201d and ask for 64 bins, I will get some random number of points between 100-130. Upon trying to return to the default number of bins, nothing will happen. If I then request something simple such as 1-2 bins, I get something like 5-6 points. None of this happens when using the \u201c\u201cBox Averaging in Qy\u201d function.\n\nThis issue is produced on both v2.2.1 and the latest development version available online.\"\n\nI have verified this is the case also with the 2D data in the test folder. Once fixed Alex should be notified (at [email protected]) as part of the resolution to this ticket.\n\n",
"reporter": "butler",
"cc": "",
"resolution": "fixed",
"time": "2014-03-27T22:49:14",
"component": "SasView",
"summary": "Problem with Box Averaging in Qx",
"priority": "major",
"keywords": "",
"milestone": "SasView 3.0.0",
"owner": "krzywon",
"type": "defect"
}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The directionality of the averaging was not passed forward when the averaging parameters were changed, causing this issue. The default averaging direction was in the Y direction, so any averaging done once the box was set was in the Y direction. I added a class variable called direction to the BoxInteraction class that is set the first time the box averaging is called.
After testing with an anisotropic data set, the Qx and Qy averages are different and can be modified separately.
krzywon changed resolution from "" to "fixed"
krzywon changed status from "accepted" to "closed"
Alexander Grutter of NIST reports "I’ve been having issues with the binning when using the “Box Averaging in Qx” function. When interacting with a 2D plot and attempting to average a rectangular box, the number of points output does not seem to correspond to the number of requested bins. For example, if I select “edit slicer parameters” and ask for 64 bins, I will get some random number of points between 100-130. Upon trying to return to the default number of bins, nothing will happen. If I then request something simple such as 1-2 bins, I get something like 5-6 points. None of this happens when using the ““Box Averaging in Qy” function.
This issue is produced on both v2.2.1 and the latest development version available online."
I have verified this is the case also with the 2D data in the test folder. Once fixed Alex should be notified (at [email protected]) as part of the resolution to this ticket.
Migrated from http://trac.sasview.org/ticket/210
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: