You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is it possible to check in a multi-block JCAMP-file, if there is any block with DATA_TYPE=LINK and to adjust the behaviour of the splitMultiblockDX-function accordingly? I experienced that in cases where the LINK-block is missing, the function will now simply throw an error because it thinks that the number of START and END statements do not match. I viewed the code and found out that this is due to the implicit assumption that there must always be a LINK-block. In my example, however, there was no such block, so I added it manually.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'll look into this in January. JCAMP allows a lot of different configurations which creates a lot of possibilities. Adding what was missing manually was a good idea, I've had to do that a lot of times (not for the LINK, but for required parameters that vendors leave out).
The above is what the JCAMP standard requires, but the function only checks for ##BLOCKS= so I guess the file that is giving you trouble is missing ##BLOCKS=. But, is it also missing ##DATA TYPE= LINK line?
I think the fix is to issue a warning if ##BLOCKS= is missing, but then we'll still have to find an equal number of TITLE and END statements.
Is it possible to check in a multi-block JCAMP-file, if there is any block with
DATA_TYPE=LINK
and to adjust the behaviour of thesplitMultiblockDX
-function accordingly? I experienced that in cases where the LINK-block is missing, the function will now simply throw an error because it thinks that the number ofSTART
andEND
statements do not match. I viewed the code and found out that this is due to the implicit assumption that there must always be a LINK-block. In my example, however, there was no such block, so I added it manually.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: