Dear all,

Just to summarise where we are before I go on leave

David – yes

Rob – yes

Pas – Maybe?

Steve K – away

Steve C – away

I will pass on the specific comments about work to be covered to James Clarke who is leading the epic so that they can be taken into account.

All the best

Sarah

I think this is fine providing we keep the old one running on the side until the new one performs well.

A couple of things I don't see (like Rob, we use this all the time).

The peak overlay is good but other functionalities like peak erasing should be there for us (they are there at the moment but have become increasingly buggy).  I guess this comes under the RoI selection, etc.... But just want to make sure it is in there.

Also, I think it would be very useful to be able to call some functionality with python so some set plots can be included in scripts (and eventually GUI, like the SXD one).

Otherwise, I think it is good to go (there are plenty of little annoying things in instrument view that need fixing but this can be done when the project actually starts).

best,

P

Hi all,

Yes the plan is to run both the current Instrument View alongside the new one. I would not seek to remove the current one without consultation with all science areas to ensure the newer Instrument View is fit for purpose.

Rob – James is a stakeholder. He has been invited to meetings and been asked for input when writing the epic. We had therefore assumed that SANS issues had been raised at that stage, before the epic was put forward to the board.

All the best

Sarah

If I understand the epic correctly the existing instrument view wouldn’t be removed until the full fate new one was deployed? Perhaps the wording here could be clarified to alleviate concerns. I don’t need to see it again if you do clarify this.

I think in reality the MVP is in fact the prototype to let people try out the look and feel and the full version is actually the MVP. All that Rob says is true and it would be pretty disastrous if the current one was disappeared without them being in place. But I don’t read the epic that way and had considered all the features described as being captured by this epic.

It is a yes from me.

David

Hi Sarah,

I think that I asked James to input into this epic.

Having taken a look at the Atlassian page…

I would like to highlight that the SANS group use the instrument view all the time to define detector masks (every experiment) and that we make extensive use of the feature that allows the wavelength (TOF) to be selected using the drag bar at the bottom.

We also make use of difference colour bar scaling. Linear/logarithmic etc in order to view different aspects of the scattering.

Within the interface we use the features that allow regions to be summed and masked as well as those that allow us to pick individual spectra or tubes and view these immediately in the on-screen plot.

These features are particularly useful when trying to determine if scattered features are parasitic flares that need to be masked.

Masks are saved directly from the interface using the save mask to file.

In other words, we use a significant number of the existing features. I’m as concerned that the MVP does not include masking features and how to deal with them.

Rob

Dear all,

I am e-mailing to ask for a re-review of the Instrument View Epic (https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117 ).

The requests made to change the epic to take account of GUIs that use Instrument View (e.g. ALFView) have been completed.

We have also checked with the science areas requested. For those that did not respond initially we gave them until 1^st November for comment otherwise we would assume assent. We have now received all the responses we can expect – please see the other e-mail chain to the list for more details. Therefore I am asking for the board to make a decision as soon as possible on this one as we would like to start work on it.

We have not done this before but I think we would need a yes or no in writing (i.e. response to this e-mail).

Let me know if you have any questions

Many thanks

Sarah

Sarah Foxley

Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager

Science and Technology Facilities Council

Phone – 01235 446938

sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org

She/Her/Hers