rdsamp and wrsamp not isopmorphic
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Stale
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- api, documentation
Research direction
Start with the rdsamp and wrsamp API documentation and reproduce the reported round-trip behavior using the corresponding read and write calls. Trace the relevant implementation and existing tests to determine whether the limitation can be removed; otherwise, document the required arguments and a working example.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Hi there, this has likely been discussed somewhere at length however I can't seem to find such a discussion and the documentation doesn't appear to cover this key limitation:
In short, if I call wfdb.rdsamp and then use the corresponding wrsamp method, typical programming conventions assume that the two methods should be isomorphic – whatever is read into memory by rdsamp should be sufficient and, by default, produce an identical output when wrsamp is called to process the in-memory object. However, as best as I can tell, this is not the case, which is very counterintuitive and breaks with standard programming conventions.
This key limitation doesn't appear to be covered in the documentation and, at minimum, it would seem it should be. Better yet, an example of what arguments to set to make them isomorphic should be documented. This assumes that the ideal (that they are isomorphic) is not possible, however, for the library UX, this seems something to strive.
I would send a PR myself, however, I'm actively running up against this issue and therefore do not currently have a solution to propose.
- 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
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from MIT-LCP/wfdb-python
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
MIT-LCP/wfdb-python#568 ·
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
MIT-LCP/wfdb-python#557 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 58/100
MIT-LCP/wfdb-python#554 ·
-
WFDB path ignored Open
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
MIT-LCP/wfdb-python#545 ·
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 30/100
MIT-LCP/wfdb-python#540 ·
All issues in MIT-LCP/wfdb-python
Similar issues
-
clawsweeper:linked-pr-open clawsweeper:no-new-fix-pr clawsweeper:source-repro impact:message-loss issue-rating: 🦞 diamond lobster maturity:stable P2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
growthbook/growthbook#7100 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
punkpeye/mcp-remote#369 ·
-
Client customer-reported needs-team-attention question Service Attention WebPubSub
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
Azure/azure-sdk-for-net#63292 · 3 comments · 1 reaction ·
-
bug p:3-mid pydanty:bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
pydantic/pydantic-ai#8643 · 1 comment ·