Add algorithm for calculating Wildes polarization efficiencies

[rbauststfc]

Description of work

Summary of work

Adds new algorithm PolarizationEfficienciesWildes that calculates the polarization efficiencies for a two-flipper instrument setup according to the Wildes 2006 paper. This implementation is based on the implementation that POLREF are currently using in their reduction code.

It is one of three algorithms that will be written under the linked issue.

Refs #35682.

Further detail of work

See linked issue for detailed description of what was required, and see the algorithm documentation (or the appropriate sections of the Wildes 2006 paper, as referenced in the linked issue) for the equations that have been implemented.

Note that the errors currently use the default Mantid errors. This is discussed on the main issue and, as stated there, we've agreed with our scientists that this is what should be done for the first version of this algorithm.

I will be adding a system test at a later stage (but before closing the linked issue), potentially for the whole workflow rather than specifically for this algorithm.

To test:

• Build the docs-html target and check that the algorithm documentation renders OK and is understandable.

• The following script can be used to test the algorithm functionality:

ws00 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+12")
ws01 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+1")
ws10 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+2")
ws11 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+10")

nonMag = GroupWorkspaces([ws00, ws01, ws10, ws11])

wsM00 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+6")
wsM01 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+0.2")
wsM10 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+0.3")
wsM11 = CreateSampleWorkspace(XUnit="Wavelength", NumBanks=1, BankPixelWidth=1, Function="User Defined", UserDefinedFunction="name=UserFunction, Formula=x*0+1")

mag = GroupWorkspaces([wsM00, wsM01, wsM10, wsM11])

PolarizationEfficienciesWildes('nonMag', 'mag', Flippers='00,01,10,11', IncludeDiagnosticOutputs=True, OutputFpEfficiency="fp", OutputFaEfficiency="fa", OutputPolarizerEfficiency="p", OutputAnalyserEfficiency="a")

• If you would like to test with real calibration runs then talk to Rachel.

---

Reviewer

Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.

Code Review

• Is the code of an acceptable quality?
• Does the code conform to the coding standards?
• Are the unit tests small and test the class in isolation?
• If there is GUI work does it follow the GUI standards?
• If there are changes in the release notes then do they describe the changes appropriately?
• Do the release notes conform to the release notes guide?

Functional Tests

• Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
• Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
• Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?

Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.

Gatekeeper

If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.

[sf1919]

@rbauststfc please ignore the 200+ OSX test failures - problem with a machine. PR should run on a different machine next time you push a commit.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @rbauststfc,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.

[cailafinn]

Code looks really good, just a few very minor comments. Docs looking good, just a note on the See Also section.

Functionally tested using the provided script, which worked really well. Some further functional testing revealed an issue when either the OutputPolarizerEfficiency or OutputAnalyzerEfficiency workspace names are not provided. This only occurs in the algorithm dialog if it has been set to Keep open, run once with the flipper/polariser names set, and then run again with the names removed.

Error in execution of algorithm PolarizationEfficienciesWildes:
Add Data Object with empty name

[cailafinn]

Changes to the code look good, functionally working well for multiple runs, documentation looking good. Nice work, happy to approve