If the topic is not dead yet, I'd like to add some things:

A bug, if a MultiPeakFit graph is open with the attached external control panel containing many peaks:
- When the focus is on another window (another graph, table, etc.) clicking & dragging the scroll bar of the external panel containing the peak list will result in a additional list generated in the graph window and scrolling this list instead of the one in the external panel

- It would make things quicker if its possible to easily get rid of all (or most of) the peaks to start over. Maybe a button ' delete all peaks' would be the easiest way. Ok, maybe the reply to this is to just start a new set, but I hate to have my experiment cluttered with useless stuff, so I use exactly one set per wave.

Thanks for looking into this.

Meanwhile I think I have found something regarding this issue:

In the function MPF2_AddFitCurveToGraph is this written:

...
	if (WaveExists(xDataWave))
		xleft = xDataWave[XPointRangeBegin]
		xright = xDataWave[XPointRangeEnd]
	else
		xleft = pnt2x(yDataWave, XPointRangeBegin)
		xright = pnt2x(yDataWave, XPointRangeEnd)
	endif
 
	Variable dx = MPF2_MinPeakWidth(wfi)/10
	Variable npnts = 200
	if (dx > 0)
		npnts = (xright-xleft)/dx
	endif
	Variable/G MPF2_FitCurvePoints = npnts
 
	String fitName = "fit_"+NameOfWave(yDataWave)
	Make/O/N=(npnts) $fitName
...

The xleft and xright values are grabbed from the beginning and end of the wave, but with negative scaling delta xleft will be bigger than xright. This means the following npnts calculation will come out negative, thus breaking the make command. Ok, an abs() will solve this, but there may be other cases where the normal direction of the wave scaling is assumed. When I find the time I may change this and see if I find other errors.

Sorry, I was hesitating to update because I support 4 PCs with one being an actual experiment control device and having different versions usually generates problems. But ok, I have updated Igor and hope the new version will be standard soon.

Now, moving on to my other 'bug' (now with Igor 6.20):

I think, the cause is Make/O/D/N=1 $(DFPath+":'Baseline Coefs'") in the BuildMultiPeak2Panel function which munches away all existing coefs but the first while generating the panel. This destroys all baselines with more than one coef.

OK- you were, of course, correct. The proper fix wasn't to simply remove it or add a conditional at that spot. It wasn't really the correct place to have the creation of the wave. I moved it to a more correct place, plus added conditionals to make sure it didn't wipe out a pre-existing wave. I have attached a copy of the fixed procedure file.

John Weeks
WaveMetrics, Inc.
support@wavemetrics.com

Fixed.

John Weeks
WaveMetrics, Inc.
support@wavemetrics.com

Awesome, new features every day!

Now the usage report for the latest version (in the order I notice it / get it reproduced):

a) When starting fresh the manual adding of a peak seems broken.
a1) Manual add of a peak before doing anything results in 'While executing a wave read, the following error occurred: Index out of range for wave "EditPeakList"', but the peak still gets added.
a2) After one click on Auto-Locate and then trying to add a peak results in 'While executing a wave read, the following error occurred: Index out of range for wave "HoldStrings"', but the peak gets added.

b) Ok, thats nothing new but I keep wondering why:
b1) A wave 'SavedCoefWave' is created and changed when clicking the hold checkboxes and contains the coefs of the clicked peak. Does this wave have any purpose? And if yes, then why isn't it generated in the set folder?
b2) A following error message (e.g. before a fit was made) after clicking on 'Peak Results' changes the current folder to the MPFset folder. The info message probably prevents the correct reset to 'root'. There may be other situations, when a different function exit causes this. I keep looking.

c) I still can't get the hold values remembered correctly. I guess, when the hold bits are written in the 'HoldStrings' wave everything gets loaded fine again. I try to watch the 'HoldStrings' values while playing around with the checkboxes, but so far the only option to actually write something there is to use the right-click menu and choose one of the two options. Simply clicking the checkbox or every other button does't update the values at all.

d) The initialization feature is cool, even gives a new way to get rid of all peaks to start over.
d1) Currently, when a set is started with the peaks panel open clicking on continue in the Start Multi-Peak Fit panel just gives focus to the graph. Wouldn't it be even more useful now (with the new initialize feature) to rebuild the panel with the new settings (i.e. automatically close the peak panel and rebuild / update everything with the new settings)? Just a tiny thing to get working more smooth.
d2) Loading a set for another wave currently doesn't work, because there is a name check in place, giving the error 'The Y wave you selected (...) is not the same as the one previously used with this graph. ...'. I think the intention was to copy over the the data to the new set associated with this graph an use the information as a starting point, but at the moment merely a set folder and a graph gets created.

OK- the next try!

John Weeks
WaveMetrics, Inc.
support@wavemetrics.com

That is great! There are some bugs still, but the overall usability is way better now.
I try to write a new report, when I have more time. It seems that there are some edge cases where the checkpoint system fails, but good thing it's possible to always reload it via the main menu.
Hopefully you will find the time to work a little more on this project.

EDIT:
ok, some things I have found:

Checkpoint Feature:
- When I choose 'restore checkpoint' the checkpoint sometimes fails to load. The cause is in the function MPF2_CheckpointMenuProc(s). The SVAR named 'gname' is referenced as the graph name, but later on the variable gets killed by the KillDataFolder $DFpath and giving a null string to the following MPF2_StartNewMPFit
- sometimes it works somehow (maybe the folder removal fails at some point)

Initialization Feature:
- I was misled by the 'start fresh' option, which currently doesn't get rid of the peaks as I thought but generates a completely new set. Currently, for my taste it's too easy to end up generating new sets and too difficult to resume present sets (at the moment at least the graph has to remain open or a recreation macro has to be prepared). I have no cool suggestions for this at the moment. I try to come up with a idea to simplify the start menu while ease up things. Maybe reversing the order of options is better? Currently its like

{specify wave} -> graph:{old}/{new} -> init: {empty}/{old}/{set1}/{set2}...

but working from the view of sets would be like:

choose set: {new}/{set1}/{set2}
-> if previous set -> init: {delete peaks}/{old peaks}
-> if new set -> {specify wave} -> init: {empty}/{set1}/{set2}

Peak Adding Error:
Some more situations for the infamous 'HoldStrings'-issue:
In the function MPF2_SortAutoPeakWave after adding the first peak, this fails:

	if (!ParamIsDefault(holdwave))
		Duplicate/O/T holdwave, MPF2_TempHoldWave
		holdwave = ""
		holdwave[1,] = MPF2_TempHoldWave[MPF2_indexwave[p-1]+1]
	endif

	//DoUpdate
		if (i < DimSize(EditPeakList, 0))
			sscanf EditPeakList[i], "EditPeak %d", peakNumber
			HoldStrings[numPeaksBefore, ] = ""
		endif

	HoldStrings[i+1] = MPF2_HoldStringForPeakListItem(peakItem, DFPath, listPanel)

Anyway, it's fixed now.

I agree that it is a bit cumbersome.

	if (!ParamIsDefault(holdwave))
		Duplicate/O/T holdwave, MPF2_TempHoldWave
		holdwave = ""
		holdwave[1,] = MPF2_TempHoldWave[MPF2_indexwave[p-1]+1]
	endif

	//DoUpdate
		if (i < DimSize(EditPeakList, 0))
			sscanf EditPeakList[i], "EditPeak %d", peakNumber
			HoldStrings[numPeaksBefore, ] = ""
		endif

	HoldStrings[i+1] = MPF2_HoldStringForPeakListItem(peakItem, DFPath, listPanel)

Hi, Chozo. I just got back from a week away. I will check into your latest report soon. I don't know why this is being so difficult!

John Weeks
WaveMetrics, Inc.
support@wavemetrics.com

Cool thing. I play around with this.

Now, I can imagine you have other things to do, especially since the betas are rolling out, but I'd like to bug you a bit more with ideas for a changed results export.
I think the results table is a nice overview and one can sort the data too. How about a button to get a table generated (maybe in the root folder or whatever) with the contents and the sorting of the overview?
I even wonder how many people would then go for the tab-delimited output, since the table export from Igor itself gets this done too (and more).

Thanks a lot!

To try to reproduce the rest of your errors, I used the waves 'my y data' and 'my x data' from the Multipeak Fit 2 Demo experiment.

John Weeks
WaveMetrics, Inc.
support@wavemetrics.com

The last two files work fine for me, but I have to tested them to the ultimate limit due to time constraints. Anyway, thanks for your fine work, John!
Wolfgang Harneit

Ok, I think I find some time again to play around with MPF2. Is there a newer version yet (maybe the bugs I find already vanished long ago)?
For now, I stick with the posted version and report bugs as I find them.

The fitting process can produce peaks (peakwaves) with negative delta, e.g. when a peak grows unreasonable big and grows outside to the left of the fitting area.
Then the tag-adding function in MPF2_AddPeaksToGraph gets a problem:

	Variable attachPoint = center < XStart ? XStart : center > XEnd ? XEnd : center
	if (w(attachPoint) < 0)
		anchorCode = "MT"
	endif

possibility to constrain to only negative or only positive peaks
Ok, easy to demand and maybe complicate to implement, but I never want to have negative peaks, because for my fits they are simply wrong. Sometimes the fit procedure seeks an easy way out by producing negative and positive peaks adding up to get the work done. Then I often have a hard time rearranging the peaks to prevent this from happening. How easy would it be with a simple checkbox that disallow negative (or positive for other purposes) peaks, even if the fit won’t be as good.

Was there a solution to this? I can't find an option for it.

Thanks for Multipeakfit, it rocks!

Someone, quick, hire this guy!

:)