Hi, Ok, I'll leave it to you to revert r22937. For the commit message, remember to include the name of the revision reverted, the command used (svn merge -r22937:r22936), as well as the old svn commit message indented by 2 spaces and surrounded '.....'. This is required for me to keep track of things - this is obviously a weak point when compared to git!
Cheers, Edward On 4 May 2014 17:38, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Edward. > > B14 is no longer in MODEL_LIST_NUMERIC_CPMG. > > And I printed out the powers from the target function, > and the relax_disp.plot_curves interpolate with odd numbers. > > So, ... bum bum. > > But I am sure, that an even ncyc number becomes handy! > > Best > Troels > > 2014-05-04 16:42 GMT+02:00 Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> The commit r22937 was rather your bug fix >> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.scm/20678). If you >> revert this, do you still see the problem? Maybe this fix is why you >> can no longer reproduce the bug ;) >> >> The relax_disp.cpmg_frq to relax_disp.cpmg_setup user function change >> is r22943 (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.scm/20684). >> I think such a change should be performed now rather than later. >> This is because scripts are allowed to break between minor version >> numbers, i.e. between 3.1.x to 3.2.x relax versions. But scripts and >> the relax API should not break for a given minor version number, i.e. >> all 3.2.x releases should be compatible. Then I can release relax >> 3.2.0 with the large specific API changes, code clean ups, the B14 >> model, and all of the recent bugfixes. >> >> Regards, >> >> Edward >> >> >> >> On 4 May 2014 16:32, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah, that is probably best. >>> >>> It will break all current scripts at people places. >>> >>> Can you "store" the change for later user? >>> >>> Best >>> Troels >>> >>> 2014-05-04 15:21 GMT+02:00 Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]>: >>>> Hmmm. I wonder what happened there. I've now renamed the user >>>> function (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.scm/20684). >>>> This will nevertheless be useful if we wish to advance the numerical >>>> models in relax. Do you think you should revert r22937 then? >>>> >>>> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/relax/trunk/specific_analyses/relax_disp/data.py?r1=22937&r2=22936&pathrev=22937 >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Edward >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 May 2014 12:48, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hm. >>>>> >>>>> Now I cant reproduce the bug? >>>>> >>>>> An odd number of NCYC, gives fine interpolated graphs. >>>>> >>>>> Hm... >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-04 12:24 GMT+02:00 Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]>: >>>>>> Sound good with a flag, default to True. >>>>>> >>>>>> That means less code interruption. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Troels >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-04 12:12 GMT+02:00 Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> I might try implementing this user function change, and store the >>>>>>> cdp.ncyc_even flag. Then you could use it for the interpolation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edward >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4 May 2014 11:59, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> The defaults for a relax_disp.cpmg_setup could be: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> relax_disp.cpmg_setup(spectrum_id=None, cpmg_frq=None, ncyc_even=True) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This can then be expanded in the future for special CPMG dispersion >>>>>>>> experiment types (CW decoupling vs. pi pulses, etc.) where the numeric >>>>>>>> model would require changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edward >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4 May 2014 11:53, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sorry, that was a bad typo, it should be Flemming Hansen's dispersion >>>>>>>>> pulse sequence! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4 May 2014 11:52, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It depends on the pulse sequence. Here is one I found written by >>>>>>>>>> Flemming Hanser where you can use odd numbers: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://nmrwiki.org/psdb/kaylab/vnmrsys/psglib/CaHD_cpmg_GLY_dfh_600_v1.c >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Look for the comment: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "ncyc can be either even or odd :)" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Such sequences are probably in the minority though. Anyway, maybe we >>>>>>>>>> need a new user function. It would be good to have a series of user >>>>>>>>>> functions for specifying the experimental information. We already >>>>>>>>>> have that with: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> spectrometer.frequency >>>>>>>>>> relax_disp.exp_type >>>>>>>>>> relax_disp.relax_time >>>>>>>>>> relax_disp.cpmg_frq >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So keeping along these lines, maybe we need to have a >>>>>>>>>> relax_disp.cpmg_even_ncyc user function? Or we rename >>>>>>>>>> relax_disp.cpmg_frq to relax_disp.cpmg_setup and have that user >>>>>>>>>> function reserved for all CPMG pulse sequence info? What do you >>>>>>>>>> think? Renaming user functions does require a relax minor version >>>>>>>>>> number change though, so introducing it before relax 3.2.0 is a good >>>>>>>>>> idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edward >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4 May 2014 11:24, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Edward. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The number of CPMG blocks has to be an even number. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember this clearly, since I once did an CPMG experiment, with >>>>>>>>>>> some ncycs equal 4, 10, 15, 20, 25, ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And the intensities for all eksperiments with odd NCYC number was >>>>>>>>>>> horrible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kaare told me, that ncycs always has to be even. >>>>>>>>>>> That was something that Mikael Akke also have insisted on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But that day, I could not easily find it in the literature, so I >>>>>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>>> it and accepted just another fact of NMR. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And when I did the interpolated graphs with an odd-number of NCYC, >>>>>>>>>>> that looked weirdo. >>>>>>>>>>> Sig-saw all over the place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I actually think it could be a input check in relax, warning the >>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>> if the number of CPMG blocks are not equal? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And, I would be very happy to find it in the literature. :-) >>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever come around this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> Troels >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2014-05-04 11:06 GMT+02:00 Edward d Auvergne >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>> Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22008 (project relax): >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If this is a restriction of only the B14 analytic CPMG model >>>>>>>>>>>> (http://wiki.nmr-relax.com/B14), it would be best if only the B14 >>>>>>>>>>>> is affected. >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no need to restrict the numeric models based on the >>>>>>>>>>>> artificial >>>>>>>>>>>> limitation of an unrelated model. Maybe the best solution would >>>>>>>>>>>> be to check >>>>>>>>>>>> if the model is B14, and if so skip odd interpolation points? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reply to this item at: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://gna.org/bugs/?22008> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Message sent via/by Gna! >>>>>>>>>>>> http://gna.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
