Skip to content

Conversation

Edouard2laire
Copy link
Contributor

@Edouard2laire Edouard2laire commented Sep 8, 2025

Looking for startup.m is not a good idea (i dont think its a good idea to have it in the toolbox either) as it is the default script that is executed when starting matlab: https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/startup.html

Edit: btw, we might want to execute mvgc_makemex during installation to generate the mex if they are missing (case for ARM computer -- i tested, the compilation works)

Note: i also opened a PR here: lcbarnett/MVGC1#2

@rcassani
Copy link
Member

rcassani commented Sep 8, 2025

The fist point is addressed in commit e7ebaa2

Compiling the missing mexfile sounds good.
Can you add it to this PR?

@Edouard2laire
Copy link
Contributor Author

yes i'll do that tomorrow

@rcassani rcassani changed the title [plugin] fix Mvgc plugin definition [Plugin] Add mexmaca64 files for MVGC Sep 13, 2025
@Edouard2laire Edouard2laire marked this pull request as draft September 16, 2025 13:50
@Edouard2laire
Copy link
Contributor Author

Compiling is difficult since the script is waiting for user prompt to perform some test. lcbarnett/MVGC1#2 should help with this but i dont think it will ever get merged.

So what i suggest would be to fork the repository and download directly from that fork so we can apply both patches:

  • renaming of the startup file
  • compilation of the mex
  • possibility to compile without user input

Edouard

@rcassani
Copy link
Member

@Edouard2laire, that solution looks good

The toolbox is forked here: https://github.com/brainstorm-tools/MVGC1

Can you add the missing compiled files, and the flag for interactive compilation?

For the renaming (and the symlink), that's already handled in Brainstorm on adding the plugin, is there an advantage on changing that in the fork?

@Edouard2laire
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry about the delay. I opened the PR here: brainstorm-tools/MVGC1#1

For the renaming (and the symlink), that's already handled in Brainstorm on adding the plugin, is there an advantage on changing that in the fork?

The advantage i see is that it would clean up a bit the plugin code; but we can leave it like that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants