Improved alternate DataGrabber interface #623
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
||
| >>> from nipype import SelectFiles, Node | ||
| >>> dg = SelectFiles(infields=["subject_id"], | ||
| ... templates={"T1": "{subject_id}/struct/T1.nii", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could we simply do it with templates and no infields? and use anything the person provides in {} to create dynamic inputs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah this was actually my original idea and then I forgot. I will implement this.
satra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 10, 2013
Improved alternate DataGrabber interface
1 task
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This alternate approach to the DataGrabber uses the {}-based string format syntax instead of the %-based syntax of the previous version. Because it is totally backwards incompatible with the original DataGrabber, I wrote it as as second class.
Please don't merge with the
DataGrabber2name, that is just a placeholder. Suggestions for other names are welcome. We could go with a name that distinguishes it from DataGrabber (e.g.FormatGrabber, although that doesn't make a lot of sense), or just a synonym (e.g.SelectFiles). I'd probably lead towards the latter.I think this approach should cover (at least) as many use cases as the existing DataGrabber, but please let me know if there's something obvious I've left out.