AlignAndFocusPowderSlim prototype

[peterfpeterson]

This is a reimplementation of AlignAndFocusPowderFromFiles that is (currently) hard coded for the VULCAN instrument. It is a bit better than a prototype that we are bundling into mantid so it can get into instrument scientist hands for testing and feedback.

Eventually (maybe even this development cycle), this will support more instruments and functionality of AlignAndFocusPowderFromFiles.

The careful reviewer will notice that the underlying code has an amount of functionality that is not yet exposed to the user (e.g. event filtering). Please don't request it to be exposed/removed here, but it is still valid to request changes to it.

There is no associated issue.

Further detail of work

To test:

Previous call with AlignAndFocusPowderFromFiles versus AlignAndFocusPowderSlim (with the 1GB unit test file)

filename="VULCAN_218062.nxs.h5"
AlignAndFocusPowderFromFiles(Filename=filename, OutputWorkspace="wksp_from_files", Params=(13000,-0.0016,36000), PreserveEvents=False)
AlignAndFocusPowderSlim(Filename=filename, OutputWorkspace="wksp_slim", XMin=13000, XMax=36000, XDelta=0.0016)

where old takes (on my laptop) 2.8s (1.7s is for load) and new takes 1.5s.

For VULCAN_217967 (18GB) the difference is a bit larger

filename="VULCAN_217967.nxs.h5"
AlignAndFocusPowderFromFiles(Filename=filename, OutputWorkspace="wksp_from_files", Params=(7000,-0.0016,30000), PreserveEvents=False)
AlignAndFocusPowderSlim(Filename=filename, OutputWorkspace="wksp_slim", XMin=7000, XMax=30000, XDelta=0.0016)

where old is killed by oomkiller during load and new takes 16.2s.

---

Reviewer

Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.

Code Review

• Is the code of an acceptable quality?
• Does the code conform to the coding standards?
• Are the unit tests small and test the class in isolation?
• If there is GUI work does it follow the GUI standards?
• If there are changes in the release notes then do they describe the changes appropriately?
• Do the release notes conform to the release notes guide?

Functional Tests

• Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
• Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
• Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?

Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.

Gatekeeper

If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.

[sf1919]

I won't re-run tests on this on as it genuinely fails AlignAndFocusPowderSlimTest. I expect other commits will be pushed.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @peterfpeterson,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @peterfpeterson,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @peterfpeterson,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @peterfpeterson,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.

[rboston628]

Everything is here that is needed for the algorithm. It is a new algorithm entering bench testing, so very low risk approving this.