Skip to content

FIX: Qwarp in AFNI can have NIFTI and NIFTI_GZ as extensions #2921

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

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from
Closed

FIX: Qwarp in AFNI can have NIFTI and NIFTI_GZ as extensions #2921

wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

gpiantoni
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

outputtype of Qwarp can take three values ('NIFTI' or 'AFNI' or 'NIFTI_GZ') but the current code only handles the "AFNI" case. This bugfix uses the standard nipype syntax to get the extension and suffix for NIFTI and NIFTI_GZ.

It also fixes a small parsing error in getting the extension from out_file.

List of changes proposed in this PR (pull-request)

Acknowledgment

  • [ x] (Mandatory) I acknowledge that this contribution will be available under the Apache 2 license.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Apr 19, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #2921 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2921   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.51%   67.51%           
=======================================
  Files         344      344           
  Lines       44058    44058           
  Branches     5552     5552           
=======================================
  Hits        29746    29746           
  Misses      13566    13566           
  Partials      746      746
Flag Coverage Δ
#smoketests 50.29% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
#unittests 64.97% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c69d4ad...c69d4ad. Read the comment docs.

@effigies
Copy link
Member

effigies commented Sep 9, 2019

Hi @gpiantoni, can you rebase this against current master?

@effigies effigies added this to the 1.2.3 milestone Sep 9, 2019
@oesteban
Copy link
Contributor

oesteban commented Sep 13, 2019

Hi @gpiantoni, in addition to the rebase Chris requested, the title and description of this PR do not seem to match the proposed changes. Could you elaborate on that?

EDIT: Actually the rebase will solve the issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants