Update appdef for nxsts

[RubelMozumder]

Bringing all the plots like single_points and line_scan on the same level and out of the NXdata group.

[sanbrock]

The only remaining point is the ambiguity of the too many options where and how 'version' and model name can be registered in NXfabrication.

[RubelMozumder]

The only remaining point is the ambiguity of the too many options where and how 'version' and model name can be registered in NXfabrication.

[RubelMozumder]

@sanbrock Sorry do not be confused seeing still old version of appdef. Trying the ci/cd why it is failed?

[RubelMozumder]

@sanbrock I do not know why ci/cd failed. I have to check it. If you agree with the change please resolve the issue then I can start with the reader update respecting the new version of the PR.

[RubelMozumder]

@mkuehbach, @domna, and @lukaspie, in the Fabrication I have extended mode field by a new version attribute. Mainly, each model there may have several versions such as 5e and 4.5 from generic model. Do you see any conflict with this little change with your existing application definition?

[lukaspie]

@mkuehbach, @domna, and @lukaspie, in the Fabrication I have extended mode field by a new version attribute. Mainly, each model there may have several versions such as 5e and 4.5 from generic model. Do you see any conflict with this little change with your existing application definition?

Should be fine from the MPES side.

[RubelMozumder]

@mkuehbach, @domna, and @lukaspie, in the Fabrication I have extended mode field by a new version attribute. Mainly, each model there may have several versions such as 5e and 4.5 from generic model. Do you see any conflict with this little change with your existing application definition?

Should be fine from the MPES side.

Thanks for your quick reply.

[mkuehbach]

Hi @RubelMozumder,

The concept model is an arbitrary tech-partner specific brand name, I support that the docstring should be changed in that "when there is ambiguity about which model (version) we are talking one should write the model version in "model", I would not make an own attribute version here an example
Nion microscope Hermes 100 versus Hermes 200 I would write better the docstring such that people should users write either of these versions but not just "Hermes" into model, therefore use this docstring:
"Model of the component as it is named by the manufacturer.
If different versions exist are possible, the value in this field should be made specific enough to resolve the version."

Rest of the PR looks good to me

[RubelMozumder]

Hi @RubelMozumder,

The concept model is an arbitrary tech-partner specific brand name, I support that the docstring should be changed in that "when there is ambiguity about which model (version) we are talking one should write the model version in "model", I would not make an own attribute version here an example Nion microscope Hermes 100 versus Hermes 200 I would write better the docstring such that people should users write either of these versions but not just "Hermes" into model, therefore use this docstring: "Model of the component as it is named by the manufacturer. If different versions exist are possible, the value in this field should be made specific enough to resolve the version."

Rest of the PR looks good to me

Done!

[RubelMozumder]

@sanbrock, now it can be approved to be merged.

[Souikey]

Thank you for your modification. I didn't find any problem in these changes.

[sanbrock]

LGTM

request is considered in the new commits