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

Changes to port voltage tuning algorithm based on testing #46

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

jonnew
Copy link
Member

@jonnew jonnew commented Jan 26, 2024

No description provided.

@jonnew
Copy link
Member Author

jonnew commented Jan 26, 2024

The other things I want to add to this, but I'm unsure how to, is a Finally() operator that turns the port voltage off when acquisition stops. My understanding is that all Actions and Functions gathered by Configure<thing>.cs nodes are executed by context.Configure() at line 23 of StartAcquisition:

https://github.com/neurogears/onix-refactor/blob/69c0d3546fb9eae5565a370fb7cfe9b182c06475/OpenEphys.Onix/OpenEphys.Onix/StartAcquisition.cs#L23

I think this sequence would need to have a Finally() appended to it, and Configure<thing>.cs nodes should have the ability to register a FinalizeLink Action that is executed in the Finally() operator appended to the StartAcqusition's observable sequence.

@glopesdev
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonnew can you add the dispose comments on a separate issue? I want to present and discuss the dispose model in more detail when we meet and would be useful to track these independently.

There are implementation issues with the current logic that I will fix but the architecture is sound. I agree a dispose for link might be in order, will explain a proposal on how we might do it at next meeting.

@jonnew
Copy link
Member Author

jonnew commented Jan 29, 2024

Hey @glopesdev: I realized that when writing the comment and put them here #47. Is that what you are referring to or something different?

@jonnew
Copy link
Member Author

jonnew commented Mar 26, 2024

Are we thinking about merging this or no? I'm doing some testing with Jakob and kinda want this functionality.

@glopesdev
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonnew yup, just trying to settle on all core functionality and will then merge / rebase this from main, but can try to merge early in that case.

@glopesdev glopesdev self-requested a review March 27, 2024 06:20
@glopesdev
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonnew I have split this PR so we can evaluate and merge each of the individual features independently:

If this sounds good, I think we can close this PR without merging for now (keep your local branch just in case, though I also have a backup).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants