Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pin tifffile to a newer version to allow unpinning of ome-zarr. #208

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ilan-theodoro
Copy link

Since version 2023.3.15, tifffile micromanager_metadata["IndexMap"] is stored as a numpy array instead of a dict. So right after i get micromanager_metadata["IndexMap"], I am converting it again to a dict as specified in the tifffile releases before 2023.3.15.

However, I identified in the tests that there is shape mismatch in the test_converter.py if zarr<2.15 or tifffile>=2024.1.30, so I pinned those versions.

assert np.prod([d for d in converter.dim if d > 0]) == np.prod(

But it solves the problem in #207 and #165.

@ziw-liu ziw-liu added the maintenance Maintenance work label Feb 1, 2024
@ziw-liu ziw-liu self-requested a review February 1, 2024 19:15
@ziw-liu
Copy link
Collaborator

ziw-liu commented Feb 1, 2024

Seems like black 24.1.1 has different behavior compared to 23.1... @ilan-francisco can you change those lines so the CI passes?

# Conflicts:
#	iohub/multipagetiff.py
@ilan-theodoro
Copy link
Author

Seems like black 24.1.1 has different behavior compared to 23.1... @ilan-francisco can you change those lines so the CI passes?

My bad, I tried to fix it before I got your message. I will push it again

@ilan-theodoro
Copy link
Author

ilan-theodoro commented Feb 1, 2024

@ziw-liu actually I discovered that not all files were used locally when I tested. So the problem persists with tifffile=2023.3.15. I am having a bad time trying to solve it. The problem is indeed with the dimensions of some files. For example, reading from mm2.0-20201209_4p_2t_5z_1c_512k_1 gives different results for the versions 2023.2.28 and 2023.3.15. Somehow reading from tifffile=2023.3.15 kind of gives us an extra dimension. Do you know something about it that could give me some light?

@ziw-liu
Copy link
Collaborator

ziw-liu commented Feb 1, 2024

@ilan-francisco cgohlke/tifffile#187 gives some context. Unfortunately upstream is not interested in the particular solution I proposed.

@ziw-liu ziw-liu added the upstream Issues with upstream dependencies label Feb 1, 2024
@ziw-liu ziw-liu added this to the 0.2.0 milestone Mar 4, 2024
@ziw-liu
Copy link
Collaborator

ziw-liu commented Mar 19, 2024

Closing in favor of #185.

Thanks @ilan-theodoro!

@ziw-liu ziw-liu closed this Mar 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
maintenance Maintenance work upstream Issues with upstream dependencies
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants