add BrukerTiffImagingExtractor

[weiglszonja]

Add support for Bruker 2P imaging data which consists of:

• individual TIFF files in OME-TIF format (.ome.tif files) where each TIFF file corresponds to a single frame
• metadata in XML format (.xml and .env files)

The metadata from the .xml file in dict form for reference:

{
'version': '5.6.64.400',
'date': '2/20/2023 3:58:25 PM',
'notes': '',
'activeMode': 'ResonantGalvo',
'bitDepth': '13',
'currentScanAmplitude': [{'XAxis': '4.17170481'}, {'YAxis': '4.17170481'}],
'currentScanCenter': [{'XAxis': '0'}, {'YAxis': '0'}],
'dwellTime': '0.4',
'framePeriod': '0.032953338',
'interlacedScanTrackCount': '0',
'laserPower': [{'920 Axon': '500'}, {'1064 Axon': '900.390625'}, {'Monaco': '0'}],
'linesPerFrame': '512',
'maxVoltage': [{'XAxis': '2.085852405'}, {'YAxis': '2.085852405'}],
'micronsPerPixel': [{'XAxis': '1.1078125'}, {'YAxis': '1.1078125'}, {'ZAxis': '5'}],
'minVoltage': [{'XAxis': '-2.085852405'}, {'YAxis': '-2.085852405'}],
'objectiveLens': '16X', 'objectiveLensMag': '16', 'objectiveLensNA': '0.8',
'opticalZoom': '2',
'pixelsPerLine': '512',
'pmtGain': [{'PMT 1 HV (Red)': '800'}, {'PMT 2 HV (Green)': '700'}],
'positionCurrent': [{'XAxis': '0'}, {'YAxis': '0'}, {'Z Focus': '147.55'},
                     {'Optotune ETL 10-30': '-80.0653860309135'}],
 'preampFilter': 'NoFilter',
 'preampOffset': [{'Ch1': '0'}, {'Ch2': '0'}],
 'rastersPerFrame': '1',
 'rotation': '0',
 'samplesPerPixel': '3',
 'scanLinePeriod': '6.3129E-05',
 'useInterlacedScanPattern': 'False',
 'xYStageGridIndex': '-1', 'xYStageGridXIndex': '-1', 'xYStageGridYIndex': '-1',
 'yAspectExpansion': '1', 'zDevice': '0'}

[weiglszonja]

TODO: add tests (haven't found test data to upload to test folder)
TODO: Add a DynamicTable with the metadata shown in the description

[CodyCBakerPhD]

TODO: Bruker metadata extension? with the metadata shown in the description

How long would that take compared to writing a DynamicTable with a single row, whose columns are each of the fields? (both approaches include descriptions of each field, but the data type would be auto-inferred in the table case)

[CodyCBakerPhD]

TODO: add tests (haven't found test data to upload to test folder)

How big is this session of data? Would including only a handful of the first tiffs (basically a stub) cause a problem for the reader? (like a mismatch with something expected from the header)

[weiglszonja]

TODO: Bruker metadata extension? with the metadata shown in the description

How long would that take compared to writing a DynamicTable with a single row, whose columns are each of the fields? (both approaches include descriptions of each field, but the data type would be auto-inferred in the table case)

You're right, I haven't considered that approach, makes sense!

TODO: add tests (haven't found test data to upload to test folder)

How big is this session of data? Would including only a handful of the first tiffs (basically a stub) cause a problem for the reader? (like a mismatch with something expected from the header)

~11.81GB on disk total. Currently it would, but it can be changed that I ignore what is in the header and assume the number of frames from the tif files within the folder (but also make sure they are in consecutive order, which is the case when collecting them from the header)

[CodyCBakerPhD]

Currently it would, but it can be changed that I ignore what is in the header and assume the number of frames from the tif files within the folder (but also make sure they are in consecutive order, which is the case when collecting them from the header)

What field of the header describes how many frames to expect?

[bendichter]

I think it's better to build an extension for Bruker rather than using a DynamicTable

[weiglszonja]

Currently it would, but it can be changed that I ignore what is in the header and assume the number of frames from the tif files within the folder (but also make sure they are in consecutive order, which is the case when collecting them from the header)

What field of the header describes how many frames to expect?

It is not a single field, each frame has an entry like this:

    </Frame>
    <Frame relativeTime="602.234763984" absoluteTime="619.099763983991" index="17992" parameterSet="CurrentSettings">
      <File channel="2" channelName="Ch2" filename="NCCR32_2023_02_20_Into_the_void_t_series_baseline-000_Cycle00001_Ch2_017992.ome.tif" />
      <ExtraParameters lastGoodFrame="0" />
      <PVStateShard>
        <PVStateValue key="framePeriod" value="0.033474224" />
        <PVStateValue key="scanLinePeriod" value="6.3136E-05" />
      </PVStateShard>
    </Frame>
    <Frame relativeTime="602.268238208" absoluteTime="619.133238207991" index="17993" parameterSet="CurrentSettings">
      <File channel="2" channelName="Ch2" filename="NCCR32_2023_02_20_Into_the_void_t_series_baseline-000_Cycle00001_Ch2_017993.ome.tif" />
      <ExtraParameters lastGoodFrame="0" />
      <PVStateShard>
        <PVStateValue key="framePeriod" value="0.033474224" />
        <PVStateValue key="scanLinePeriod" value="6.3136E-05" />
      </PVStateShard>
    </Frame>
    <Frame relativeTime="602.301712432" absoluteTime="619.166712431991" index="17994" parameterSet="CurrentSettings">
      <File channel="2" channelName="Ch2" filename="NCCR32_2023_02_20_Into_the_void_t_series_baseline-000_Cycle00001_Ch2_017994.ome.tif" />
      <ExtraParameters lastGoodFrame="0" />
      <PVStateShard>
        <PVStateValue key="framePeriod" value="0.033474224" />
        <PVStateValue key="scanLinePeriod" value="6.3136E-05" />
      </PVStateShard>
    </Frame>

[CodyCBakerPhD]

It is not a single field, each frame has an entry like this:

Interesting...

But right now you decide the iteration from

    def _get_files_names(self):
        return [file.attrib["filename"] for file in self._get_xml_root().findall(".//File")]

which seems similar to globbing...

From there, if you wanted to confirm that the index of the last Frame matched the number of files from globbing, it would only be to ensure the two are consistent, right?

So to create a stub, we would remove all the frame subfields whose indexes correspond to the files we would remove as well? Since there isn't a global counter that seems a little easier

[CodyCBakerPhD]

Last 2 items then are

1. docstrings

and

2. tests (requires a stubbed session)

[CodyCBakerPhD]

@weiglszonja OK CI now has the data on its cache

Just running into some actual errors now

[weiglszonja]

@CodyCBakerPhD Thanks, I see it now. I think the issue is that (but not sure how to check in the CI which tifffile version is installed), but in the requirements_full.txt it uses an older version:

roiextractors/requirements-full.txt

Line 1 in 247ff5d

tifffile==2018.10.18

and I was using 2023.3.21.
I checked in neuroconv and TiffImagingInterface uses tiffile>=2018.10.18.
Can we change it here too?

[CodyCBakerPhD]

Can we change it here too?

Do w/e you need to do to get the CI passing here, yeah

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #220 (4f1b3f5) into master (247ff5d) will increase coverage by 0.99%.
The diff coverage is 97.87%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #220      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.28%   74.27%   +0.99%     
==========================================
  Files          33       34       +1     
  Lines        2302     2395      +93     
==========================================
+ Hits         1687     1779      +92     
- Misses        615      616       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	74.27% <97.87%> (+0.99%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...iffimagingextractors/brukertiffimagingextractor.py	97.82% <97.82%> (ø)
src/roiextractors/extractorlist.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ctors/extractors/tiffimagingextractors/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes