Ticket #6537 (closed: fixed)
Improve description for rot in <facing> IDF element
| Reported by: | Anders Markvardsen | Owned by: | Anders Markvardsen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | Release 2.5 |
| Component: | Mantid | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Blocked By: | ||
| Blocking: | Tester: | Nick Draper |
Description
The IDF <facing> have an optional attribute rot. However, I am at 90% certain that it serves no additional purpose, i.e. that the following pieces of xml is identical:
<location rot="45"><facing x="0" y="0" z="0"/></location>
and
<location><facing rot="45" x="0" y="0" z="0"/></location>
From a quick search GEM appeared to be the only instrument using this facing rot attribute.
Purpose of this ticket is to clean this up
Change History
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by Anders Markvardsen
For sanity what I just need to check first is that the facing rotation is done after the translation as is the case for a <location>, and to make sure I or anyone else do not get confused by this in the future and a nice figure to the <facing> description in IDF wiki documentation
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by Anders Markvardsen
- Priority changed from major to blocker
- Summary changed from Deprecate option for rot in <facing> IDF element to Possible deprecate option for rot in <facing> IDF element
I have changed it to 'possibly' deprecate.... since I am no longer sure whether this attribute serves a purpose.
The documentation for facing needs to be more clear, hence moved ticket to blocker status since also this fits in with today being a quality improve day.
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by Anders Markvardsen
Added more code doc for <facing> and unit tests. Re #6537
Work I did last week but related to quality improve of code and doc
Changeset: b04fe0554b92892d341f6c79e3b6f4c500526259
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by Anders Markvardsen
- Status changed from new to accepted
Decided not to deprecate <facing> "rot". The code shows and by adjusting the GEM IDF all the evidence points towards that the following syntaxes are the same
<location rot="45"><facing x="0" y="0" z="0"/></location>
and
<location><facing rot="45" x="0" y="0" z="0"/></location>
I have also added with this ticket an example confirming this.
However, I have left, since it does no harm an it does have small aesthetic benefit, see updated description http://www.mantidproject.org/IDF#Using_.3Cfacing.3E
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by Anders Markvardsen
- Status changed from accepted to verify
- Resolution set to fixed
- Summary changed from Possible deprecate option for rot in <facing> IDF element to Improve description for rot in <facing> IDF element
To test this ticket read http://www.mantidproject.org/IDF#Using_.3Cfacing.3E and if this kind of make sense to you then ticket ok
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by Nick Draper
- Status changed from verify to verifying
- Tester set to Nick Draper
Also, in LET_Definition.xml the default <components-are-facing x="0.0" y="0.0" z="0.0" /> is set but at the same time <facing x="0" y="0" z="0"/> is used in a number of places. Remove the latter also with this ticket since they serve no purpose