Signal metadata in MultiRecord

Open
#441 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
3/5
Estimated time
1-2 days
Newbie friendliness
45/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
python

Research direction

Start by locating the MultiRecord and Record definitions and the metadata path used by rdheader. Compare how sig_name is exposed for both types, then check the relevant tests or metadata-loading entry points. Done means MultiRecord provides units and samps_per_frame consistently with Record without requiring signal data to be read.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

MultiRecord has a sig_name attribute (which is copied from the first segment.) Should it also have units and samps_per_frame attributes, for convenience?

(An application calls rdheader in order to obtain record metadata, without reading any signal data. If the same attributes are available both for Record and MultiRecord then applications don't need to handle the two cases differently.)

Dominant language
Jupyter Notebook
Stars
853
Forks
322
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

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.

More from MIT-LCP/wfdb-python

All issues in MIT-LCP/wfdb-python

Similar issues

More Backend & API Design issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.