WIP: Widen projection op input - #293
Draft
gselzer wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Conversation
Now the project Op can project on a RAI input
Before the changes to the Op, this test failed, because the projection operated on the interval [0, max-min] for an image defined on interval [min, max]. With the changes to the Op, this Op works on [min, max]
gselzer
force-pushed
the
scijava-ops-image/projection-improvements
branch
from
August 17, 2026 19:29
6ee3416 to
e59977d
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Now we can pass projection functions that operate on RAIs, which makes matching them a little easier. I can imagine pitfalls, though (for example, we could write a
stats.sumOp that works onArrayImgs. If we want to project anArrayImgusing a summation, we'd match that new Op, and then not find atransform.projectOp because the input type of our summation is too specific), so more thought is probably needed.Designed to close #289 and hopefully also #292 after a little more work.