Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of DevNotes/Obsolete/v3p1PunchList
- Timestamp:
- Jun 28, 2015 6:55:17 PM (9 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
DevNotes/Obsolete/v3p1PunchList
v6 v7 10 10 11 11 2. The very nice help documentation works fine for me (apart from the previously mentioned irritating lack of “back” button on screen, though there is one if you right click, or use ALT/leftArrow; whilst ALT/rightArrow is forward.). However the section on the optimizers is not rendering equations so has $n$, $1-sigma$ etc. 12 >'''CHECK''' should be simply due to not connecting to CND 12 13 13 14 3. I think, from experiment with data rather than looking at the code, the docs for the Hayter MSA structure factor needs to note that even if no salt has been specifically added to the sample, the “salt conc” may need to be non-zero to allow for counterions that have come off say a micelle as it charges up. One day I will code up a version of the Hayter MSA where the Debye length is explicitly entered. 15 >'''TODO''' 14 16 15 4. the “help about” box does not report the exact build number, just has 1 17 4. The “help about” box does not report the exact build number, just has 1> 18 >'''KNOWN ISSUE - NEXT RELEASE''' #419 16 19 17 5. why are the parameter errors now appearing in red? (Which we usually keep around here for “fault” messages, so is giving me unnecessary stress.) 18 20 5. Why are the parameter errors now appearing in red? (Which we usually keep around here for “fault” messages, so is giving me unnecessary stress.) - NOTE added by PDB: Vaguely remember adding red when something was wrong. Also limits sometimes show up prepopulated. QUESTION: are we accidentally using the new sasmodels? 21 >'''TO CHECK''' 22 19 23 6. If I set up 3 data sets with constraints, say have M2.radius=M1.radius, M3.radius=M1.radius but then fix M1.radius at say 30 ang, I would expect the constraints to still work, but I get error message on hitting Fit in constraints page. 20 24 {{{ … … 38 42 None 39 43 }}} 40 OK the work around for this is to also fix M2.radius etc manually. However if I do that and then hit Fit on constraints page, nothing happens not even an error message. So if I “Remove” the constraints on M2.radius and M3.radius, “Fit” now attempts to work but comes back with same error message as above in red, presumably because it now has an issue with radius.width which is still constrained and fitting. Indeed if I remove the constraints on radius.width the fit now works, but with independent values for the polydispersity.44 OK the work around for this is to also fix M2.radius etc manually. However if I do that and then hit Fit on constraints page, nothing happens not even an error message. So if I “Remove” the constraints on M2.radius and M3.radius, “Fit” now attempts to work but comes back with same error message as above in red, presumably because it now has an issue with radius.width which is still constrained and fitting. Indeed if I remove the constraints on radius.width the fit now works, but with independent values for the polydispersity. 41 45 42 I would expect the constraints to work regardless of whether the base parameters in them are fixed or adjusting.46 I would expect the constraints to work regardless of whether the base parameters in them are fixed or adjusting. 43 47 44 Meanwhile perhaps there can be a quick fix in this release to put up a message that “constrained parameters must all be adjusting” ?48 Meanwhile perhaps there can be a quick fix in this release to put up a message that “constrained parameters must all be adjusting” ? 45 49 46 If anyone wants a simple 3 contrast core/shell microemulsion project, with real SANS data, to test the above just ask. I am grateful that “Save project” does now actually save all 3 data sets and models. (It would be nice if it also remembered which parameters are on/off, and in the +1 release, saved the constraints also, so that a fully working project could be emailed to someone else, as setting up the constraints etc is still non-trivial.) 50 If anyone wants a simple 3 contrast core/shell microemulsion project, with real SANS data, to test the above just ask. I am grateful that “Save project” does now actually save all 3 data sets and models. (It would be nice if it also remembered which parameters are on/off, and in the +1 release, saved the constraints also, so that a fully working project could be emailed to someone else, as setting up the constraints etc is still non-trivial.) 51 >'''CHECK''' 47 52 48 53 7. In Model Documentation, the Table of contents on left side has repeats of sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. (There is also a note at top of screen about proof reading, which is no doubt still true!) 54 >'''FIXED''' 49 55 50 56 8. The customised functions section of this section could do with a pointer to more docs on custom models hiding in User documentation/fitting perspective/fitting data/adding your own models 57 >'''FIXED''' 51 58 52 59 9. Might be useful if the “fit option” type was display on screen somewhere. 60 >'''TICKET FOR NEXT RELEASE''' #434 53 61 54 62 10. though there may be some good underlying reason, can we do away with the top level menu of the documentation? Model documentation is duplicated in User documentation, so just put Developer documentation at the bottom of the main menu and save clicks for everyone except developers (who get one more). 55 63 56 64 11. A “compute” button on the “const & simul fit” tab for a forward calculation only but with all the constraints applied would be useful. 65 >'''TICKET FOR NEXT RELEASE''' 57 66 58 67 12. In the DREAM parameter 2d correlation plots are very good but don’t actually quantify how large the correlation is. It might be useful to have some scale markers on the axes. The 2d plots are of course very small, so normal axis labels would likely look a mess, perhaps try sticks on the sides at 0 and say +-3sigma. (Normal correlation coefficients as I recall say how many standard deviations parameter A moves if parameter B moves one standard deviation.)
