Processing in conductor doesn't finish
Closed this issue · 1 comments
After an update to the latest version d4dfa6b the conductor throws a number of errors, as shown in the following code snippet. Since I ran out of options to debug, I went all the way back to c24ef4a and it works fine.
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : y
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : y
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : hy
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : y
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : y
Do you want to repeat the alignment? Y/N : n
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
Connected to the parallel pool (number of workers: 8).
variables not found/imported: AOTime AOVolts AOChannels
0×0 empty cell array
0×0 empty cell array
Index exceeds array bounds.
Error in revert_titles_text (line 5)
ts_set.faLmR_figure_names(revert_name) = erase(ts_set.faLmR_figure_names(revert_name), text_to_remove);
Error in create_data_analysis_tool/run_single_analysis (line 431)
[self.timeseries_plot_settings, self.TC_plot_settings] = revert_titles_text(" - Normalized", ...
Error in create_data_analysis_tool/run_analysis (line 389)
self.run_single_analysis();
Error in G4_conductor_controller/run_single_fly_DA (line 1683)
da.run_analysis();
Error in G4_conductor_controller/run (line 821)
self.run_single_fly_DA(self.model.plotting_file, fly_results_folder, trial_options,
experiment_folder);
Error in G4_conductor_view/run_exp (line 619)
self.con.run();
Error in G4_conductor_view>@(varargin)self.run_exp(varargin{:}) (line 139)
'units', 'pixels', 'Position', [15, self.fig_size(4)- 305, 115, 85],'Callback', @self.run_exp);
Error using alignFly_LPTC (line 67)
Error while evaluating UIControl Callback.
Weirdly there are only a few changes in the code between the two versions, most changes were in the text of the documentation.
There is also a small sub-question for this issues: For the data files that the analysis stopped, how can I generate the pdf files or where can I find the documentation on how to do it?
A bug in the data analysis code was assuming the number of faLmR figures would be the same as the number of timeseries figures, which may not be true if not performing faLmR analysis. Should be fixed now.