Add API and implementations to provide axis orientation#4454
Open
melissalinkert wants to merge 10 commits into
Open
Add API and implementations to provide axis orientation#4454melissalinkert wants to merge 10 commits into
melissalinkert wants to merge 10 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See glencoesoftware/bioformats2raw#329 and https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/4.
As outlined in glencoesoftware/bioformats2raw#329, this implements a new API that allows readers to provide axis orientation information. Right now, per RFC-4, only anatomical orientation is implemented; the intent is for this API to be flexible enough to support other orientation types in the future, if needed.
Tested on at least one dataset in each format, but unfortunately none are public, and none are true reference datasets where the correct values in RFC-4 terminology are known. Opening this is a non-draft PR to make sure no existing tests break, but once we have reference data (cc @thewtex) this will need more careful testing and possibly some updates as a result.