mne-tools / mne-tools/mne-python

Export module inconsistent, needs API decision

Open
#10,682 5 comments 2 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

API
Dominant language
Python
Stars
3.5k
Forks
1.6k
Avg merge
1d 6h
Merged PRs (30d)
100

Description

see https://github.com/mne-tools/mne-python/issues/10678#issuecomment-1139686322 and following 4 comments

In brief:

the problem

this is inconsistent, and we should clean that up / make a consistent choice before the module continues to grow.

IMHO, the current "MFF way" is not a good style and would lead to lots of confusing public functions, instead of the clean "trinity" of raw, epochs, evoked .export. Couldn't we solve this by allowing **kwargs and documenting the kwargs that can be passed? Similar to how we do it in ICA when users pick picard or fastica, etc.

What are your opinions?

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Read the linked issue and its comment thread first, then compare the export interfaces and wrappers in mne/export/_edf.py and mne/export/_egimff.py, including export_raw and export_evokeds_mff. Done means the project has agreed on one consistent public export API and documented the decision before the module grows further.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
python
Domain
api
Issue type
Refactor
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.