Beam definer #872
Beam definer #872
Conversation
|
@meguiraun: Are you ready with this one ? |
| @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ | |||
| # encoding: utf-8 | |||
| try: | ||
| _ap = eval(self.get_property("styling")) | ||
| except: | ||
| print("malformed xml") |
| _val = self.get_value() | ||
| self.emit("valueChanged", _val) | ||
|
|
||
| def get_custom_styling(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does custom styling do ? :)
| self.beam_size_hor = None | ||
| self.beam_size_ver = None | ||
| self.custom_styling = None | ||
| def init(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm surprised that this does not create a linting error, if not I think it looks better with a blank line between these methods
| try: | ||
| hor = int(self.beam_size_hor.get_value()) | ||
| ver = int(self.beam_size_ver.get_value()) | ||
| _val = f"{hor}x{ver}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you could do return self.value_to_enum(f"{hor}x{ver}")
|
Very nice initiate :) 👍 I made some minor comments you might want to have a look at |
|
|
||
| self.beam_size_hor = self.get_object_by_role("beam_size_hor") | ||
| self.beam_size_ver = self.get_object_by_role("beam_size_ver") | ||
| self.beam_size_hor.connect |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line looks really strange.
| if self.beam_size_determination is None: | ||
| # we keep the minumum | ||
| size_x = min( | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["aperture"][0], | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["slits"][0], | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["definer"][0], | ||
| ) | ||
| size_y = min( | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["aperture"][1], | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["slits"][1], | ||
| self._beam_size_dict["definer"][1], | ||
| ) | ||
| elif self.beam_size_determination == "definer": | ||
| size_x = self._beam_size_dict["definer"][0] | ||
| size_y = self._beam_size_dict["definer"][1] | ||
| elif self.beam_size_determination == "slits": | ||
| size_x = self._beam_size_dict["slits"][0] | ||
| size_y = self._beam_size_dict["slits"][1] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we not just use the already existing beam_definer instead?? Maybe I did not quite get the logic, but if there is a definer, the evaluate_beam should take the definer size. Otherwise, if you still want to continue with your code, you should define aperture as well.
|
@meguiraun I like your idea of introducing a beam definer. Thus we could make an abstraction of what is the hardware, that defines the beam size. This also simplifies the code as there is no more need of the evaluate_beam function, as get_beam_size will give the beam size of whatever the definer is. It is a good idea to provide handling of aperture and slits, but than I believe they should be configured as beam definer. |
working with beam finer elements: