Would be glad if anybody wants to weigh in on which of these two approaches is best. I think this one will specifically fix conversions and not break anybody's workflows that have been depending onPARRECImage providing TRs in seconds. I can see an argument for keeping things close to the image, but I think standardizing on seconds makes more sense.

Codecov Report

Merging#931 intomaint/3.1.x willdecrease coverage by0.08%.
The diff coverage is100.00%.

@@               Coverage Diff               @@##           maint/3.1.x     #931      +/-   ##===============================================- Coverage        91.86%   91.77%   -0.09%===============================================  Files               97       97                Lines            12360    12360                Branches          2177     2177              ===============================================- Hits             11354    11344      -10- Misses             675      681       +6- Partials           331      335       +4

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend -Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact),ø = not affected,? = missing data
Powered byCodecov. Last update97a0467...7759954. Read thecomment docs.

Anybody care to have a look? If not I'll exercise supreme maintainer powers and hit merge tomorrow.

@Roosted7@epongpipat I would appreciate your opinions on this one.

Hmm - it's a tough call, I agree. In general, we try to report the file from nibabel as a native reader would have reported it, but here I guess we allowed ourselves to make the file appear more NIfTI-like. This fix seems better for back-compatibility, but you could also make an argument for converting to seconds only when converting the image to NIfTI format (so, not in_calc_zooms, but inas_analyze...). But - I do agree that we shouldn't make odd milliseconds NIfTI images, they would be very confusing.

How about going with this for a bug fix, and we can move PARRECImage to report msec TR in a feature release?

Maybe it would be worth revisiting#567. I ran into some conceptual problems trying to think through the API there.